2014-05-20 Salary Commission AgendaL=J
PRESENT
CITIZENS COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Meeting Minutes
May 20, 2014
5:30 pm @ City Hall
121 Fifth Avenue, Edmonds
Meeting & Public Hearing
Commissioners: Brent Hunter
Co -Chair Dilys Rosales
Co -Chair Mike Hathaway
Mike Meeks
Staff: Mary Ann Hardie, HR Manager
Public: Ron Wambolt
Bruce Wittenberg
CALL TO ORDER
Co -Chair Dilys Rosales called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. Commissioner Norma Middleton was
unable to attend the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER — PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Brent Hunter made a motion to open the public hearing. Co -Chair Mike Hathaway
seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Ron Wambolt addressed the Commission first. Mr. Wambolt stated that, in his opinion, the benefits for the
Commission are great, but a revision needs to be made to the salary with regard to the meetings for the
Council Members. Mr. Wambolt further stated that he had performed an analysis of the meetings [that
Council Members were assigned to] and there are a total of 190 [for all Council] per year that they can
attend.
Additionally, Mr. Wambolt stated that there was no "incentive" in the current salary structure for them to
attend. Previously [prior to the 2012 Commission recommendation and change to the cafeteria style
salary and benefits] there was an incentive. The Council Members received $50 per meeting they
attended, up to a total of 8 meetings (including the 4 Council meetings per month).
As part of his analysis, Mr. Wambolt stated that;
1. Through April 2014, with 6 Council Members, there appeared to only be reports from 4 meetings.
2. It appeared that there appeared to be one Council member who belonged to a [specific]
committee that had 11 meetings on that committee, but that he/she only attended 2 of those
meetings.
3. Based on a recent report (from the 4/22/12 Council meeting) there were 4 meetings reported on
by 3 Council Members.
Page 1
Mr. Wambolt stated that he believed that there was another discrepancy with meeting pay for Council
Members in that it appeared that one member is paid for attending a certain committee meeting at
Snohomish Health District by both the City and by Snohomish Health District. Mr. Wambolt urged the
Commission to consider reverting back to the pay practice of Council Members receiving $50 per meeting
for up to 8 meetings per month. Additionally, Mr. Wambolt stated that if the Commission believes that the
Council is underpaid, that instead the base salary should be raised. Mr. Wambolt stated that he had
served as a Council Member [at the City of Edmonds] and he offered his e-mail address for any further
questions at rrwambolt@msn.com.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Wambolt how many hours he worked per week when he was a Council
Member. Mr. Wambolt responded that he worked 20 hours a week [during his term as a Council Member].
and that he not only attended the meetings [for the Boards/Committees that he was assigned to] but that
he also attended functions at the Chamber.
Commissioner Hunter further inquired as to whether that time [20 hours per week] was spent for only
meeting time or also travel [to and from meetings] and/or meetings with constituents. Mr. Wambolt
responded that it included all of those items.
Co -Chair Rosales stated that the Commission had been given other numbers [information as to how
many hours per week the Council worked per week]. Note: this information Co -Chair Rosales refers to
was not provided by the City or Human Resources.
Mr. Wambolt explained that he had applied for the Council Member opening [when former Council
Member Frank Yamamoto resigned in December 2013] and that [during his interview with Council for the
appointment] the Council appeared to agree with him [that the $50 pay per meeting was appropriate] at
that time.
Commissioner Hunter inquired as to whether Mr. Wambolt thought that there were any alternatives that
he could suggest other than reverting back to the $50 meeting pay per meeting. Mr. Wambolt opined that
the $50 per meeting pay seems that it is enough of an incentive for attendance. Mr. Wambolt further
stated that he was aware that, with the survey comparators for Council that the Commission was
reviewing, that it did not appear that any other cities offered per meeting pay, but that he still thought it
worked.
Co -Chair Rosales inquired as to whether Mr. Wambolt believed that, before the pay structure for Council
was changed 2 years ago, that there was much better attendance at the meetings. Mr. Wambolt stated
yes. Co -Chair Rosales further inquired as to whether Mr. Wambolt was using "report counting" [the
number of reports provided by Council Members after their meetings] as a method of determining meeting
attendance. Mr. Wambolt stated that it did not mean that they a Council Member had not attended a
meeting if a report had not been provided at Council.
Commissioner Hunter inquired as Mr. Wambolt that [when he was a Council Member] what was the
consequence of not attending a meeting that was assigned. Mr. Wambolt stated that he was not aware of
any consequences but that there were personal consequences for the member in not being up to date
with what was going on as well as peer pressure. Co -Chair Rosales stated that, other than that there
didn't appear to be a consequence [of non-attendance].
Co -Chair Rosales inquired of Mr. Wambolt as to what his suggestion [to either provide an incentive for
attendance or a disincentive] would be. Mr. Wambolt replied that the $50 per meeting pay seemed
appropriate; to change the salary design of the compensation piece [for Council Members].
Commissioner Rosales stated that the suggestion would be for the Commission to take it [the $50 per
meeting pay] out of the current cafeteria plan. Mr. Wambolt further stated that the Council should
continue to be provided the health insurance as the non -provision of insurance in the past seemed unfair.
Citizen Bruce Wittenberg stated that he agreed with what Mr. Wambolt said and further thanked the
Commission for the important work and allowing him to make comments. Mr. Wittenberg stated that he
believe that the Commission was "short changing" themselves by not providing more publicity about what
Page 2
it is that the Commission does. He stated that he didn't find out about the meeting until after Mr. Wambolt
had informed him (after Mr. Wambolt had inquired with the HR staff).
Mr. Wittenberg further stated that it would be helpful if the meeting minutes and other documents were
posted on the Boards and Commission page for the Citizens' Commission. Then, this information would
be available to the public and those that were interesting in knowing could attend the meeting.
Additionally, the Commission could announce the meetings and public hearings on
MyEdmondsNews.com.
Mr. Witttenberg further inquired that he understood that the Citizens' Commission ordinance was recently
revised to be in compliance with the state statute but that it does not look like the Commission has a full
Board (seven members). Co -Chair Rosales responded that the Commission has inquired about this to
confirm [with the City's attorney's office] and that although there are not seven, the Commission has an
adequate number [to complete the work of the Commission]. Additionally, there were very few applicants
for the vacancies which had been opened for quite some time.
Mr. Wittenberg stated that it would be presumptuous of him to say why [no members of the public had
applied for the vacancies]. Additionally, would the Commission have a preliminary recommendation and
would there be another public hearing.
Co -Chair Rosales inquired of HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie as to whether or not the Commission has
another public meeting scheduled. Ms. Hardie stated that this was the second required public hearing, but
that the Commission could choose to hold another public hearing if they chose to.
Mr. Wittenberg opined that this [the two public hearings] is somewhat problematic. He explained that, if
the public isn't familiar with what it is the Commission does, then they don't have the opportunity to
comment [on the work]. Because the Commission has been restructured [as to how the final decision is
made with binding recommendations by the Commission], there is no public input on what it is that the
Commission is recommending [as a binding recommendation]. Additionally, there is no Council input.
That he Mr. Wittenberg further stated that he accepts this process, but thinks it would be valuable if the
public knew and was able to provide feedback on the [binding] recommendations the Commission makes.
Commissioner Hunter stated that a report that goes into the Council packet prior to the meeting [at which
the binding recommendations are presented to Council] this is accessible [to the public] before it is
delivered to the Council. The public may not get the meeting minutes, but the report with the binding
recommendations will be delivered in advance.
Mr. Wittenberg stated understands this and that it is valuable, but if part of the "charge" [of the
Commission] is to take into consideration what the public may be thinking about the Commission
recommendations, in his opinion, by following this system, the public doesn't have the opportunity to
opine on the comments or be able to provide input for changes.
Co -Chair Rosales stated that one issue would be providing this information prematurely [to the public]
before the Council. Co -Chair Rosales requested Mr. Wambolt's opinion on this.
Mr. Wambolt stated that Mr. Wittenberg has a good point and that this [Commission's] meeting has
"unusual" hours. This group has the ability to make a complete decision on what the Council is
compensated. Given the City Attorney's Office' interpretation of the Commission's authority to make
binding recommendations since 2012 [with regard to salary and benefits for the Mayor/Judge and
Council], the only way Citizens can have input now is when it is at a Council meeting. Mr. Wambolt stated
that he did not think that Council would have a problem with the Commission doing things this way.
Mr. Wambolt further clarified that previous to 2012, the City Council could overrule the Commission's
changes and that the salary took effect the next year.
Commissioner Hunter stated that there are established processes [for reviewing salary and benefits
information for elected officials] that Council established many years ago. The Commission uses that
same process every time and will produce a consistent report. Commissioner Hunter stated that he
Page 3
understood that the Council pay [to a cafeteria style benefit plan in 2012] was a big change and that not
everyone on Council was in favor of the "old system" [previous pay structure prior to 2012].
Mr. Wambolt stated that they wanted to get paid for not attending the meetings.
Hearing no further comments from any members of the public who were present, Commissioner
Hunter made a motion to close the public hearing at 5:38 pm. Co -Chair Rosales seconded the
motion. The motion carried.
There was some discussion that followed by the Commission about the comments made/input provided
by the public during the hearing.
Co -Chair Rosales made a motion that a representative on the Commission (Commissioner Norma
Middleton) draft up a bulleted list explaining the process that the Commission goes through
(including how the comparator cities are selected) and what the next steps are that the
Commission takes with the process. Co -Chair Mike Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion
carried. The Commission requested that Ms. Hardie contact Commissioner Middleton about the
Commission's request.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA/ MEETING MINUTES
Co -Chair Rosales made a motion to approve the agenda for the current meeting and the meeting
minutes from May 12, 2014. Co -Chair Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion carried.
CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Hunter explained to Commissioner Mike Meeks that the Commission gets in touch with the
elected officials to get input and there was feedback from the electeds that didn't necessarily fall under
the purview of the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Co -Chair Rosales stated that she wanted to discuss what the process should or would be (going forward)
if there is an issue that the Commission may have if a member is unable to follow the Commission's rules
and the Boards and Commissions' Ground Rules.
There was some discussion that followed by the Commission as to what sanctions or actions the
Commission may take in this situation. Co -Chair Rosales stated that it would be important to discuss the
rules of conduct at the start of the Commission meetings [for the year the Commission is meeting] and
also when new members come aboard. Commissioner Hunter stated that he agreed that this would be
important to convey upfront and that the Chair should have the authority to address any member who
may be "out of line." Ms. Hardie stated that the Commission always had the option of going to the Mayor
should there be an issue with a member, given the Mayor's appointment role.
After further discussion by the Commission, Co -Chair Rosales requested that Ms. Hardie provide the
Commission in writing with some information from the City Attorney as to what the options would be
should a situation arise that required the Commission to take further action.
There was additional discussion by the Commission about contacting Commissioner Meeks to help
provide a Commission orientation to help provide a better understanding of the function, process and
goals of the Commission prior to the next meeting on 5/20/14. Co -Chair Rosales stated that she would
reach out to Commissioner Meeks to see if he was able to set up a brief time to do so before the next
meeting.
DISCUSSION/CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Feedback from Elected Officials
Ms. Hardie provided the Commission with a copy of the feedback that she had received from the
Commissioners (from their elected official interviews on salary and benefits, etc.). Commissioner Hunter
shared his feedback from his final interview with the elected officials he had spoken to. The feedback
provided was as follows:
Page 4
1. There seemed to be an issue about the need for part-time staff to assist Council.
2. There seemed to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication as to how many hours the Council
members would need to work [in order to effectively perform their official duties].
3. There was a concern about not being vested in the employer contribution portion of MEBT if an
elected official serves their term (4 years) and the MEBT vesting requirement (for 100% vesting)
is 7 years.
4. Could there be an option for Council members to opt out of participating in PERS (which is not
required) and instead put their money into a 457 account? A previous Mayor opted out of
participating in PERS.
There was some discussion that followed by the Commission as to who the Commission should or could
express the feedback information with and how the Council Members could best communicate their
concerns to. There was also further discussion about if training on benefits information for Council
Members.
Commissioner Hunter proposed that the Commission compose a letter to be given to the Mayor about the
feedback and concerns the Commission has received from Council (when the Commissioners interviewed
them).
Judge's Salary
There was some discussion that followed by the Commission as to whether or not the Commission should
or could look at changes to the Judge's compensation due to the amount the state sets (that impacts and
ultimately sets this position's) salary and whether or not this position was on a contract. Ms. Hardie
pointed out that the Commission could still look to make changes to the benefits, regardless of the salary.
After further discussion the Commission decided that they would provide some reference in the
presentation to Council (with their binding recommendations) that unless something changed with the
way that the Judge's salary was determined (such as by contract) that the Commission did not feel that
there was an ability to make a proposal to any changes to the salary piece.
Mayor's Salary
There was some discussion that followed by the Commission about the Mayor's salary and benefits
information. The Commission decided that they would further consider/discuss the Mayor and Council's
salary and benefit(s) information at the next meeting.
GOALS FOR THE NEXT MEETING
The following items were determined for the next meeting's agenda:
1. Discussion/review of the Mayor and Council' salary and benefits information; evaluate best
information.
2. Further discussion about the professional development budget/options. Commissioner Hunter
proposed that if there is a budgeted amount, to specify the amount and then have the Mayor in
charge of a committee formed to determine the professional development courses authorized for
payment.
3. Review of the 2012 presentation; discussion of 2014 presentation.
4. Discussion of the content for the 2014 memo accompanying the presentation.
OTHER
Upcoming Critical Dates:
5/20/14
5:30
Second Public Hearin — CITY HALL 3 rd Floor, Fourtner Room
6/5/14
5:30
Meeting
6/12/14
5:30
Final Meeting
Page 5
Page 6