2014-05-20 Salary Commission MinutesL=J
PRESENT
CITIZENS COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Meeting Minutes
Revised 7119114
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 and additional ways to provide input from the public including posting
information about the Commission's selection process on the City's website. Commissioner Meeks
inquired as to whether or not the City's website fell under the charge/purview of the Commission.
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.
There was some further discussion that followed by the Commission about whether or not to have a third
[optional] public hearing. Commissioner Hunter stated that he wanted to provide information to the public
about the process, but that it was important for it to be understood that the Commission retains the right
by ordinance to make a final decision on the process.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES/APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Co -Chair Rosales made a motion to approve the current meeting agenda and the meeting minutes
from May 12, 2014 meeting. Co -Chair Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion carried.
CORRESPONDENCE
There was additional discussion by the Commission that followed regarding the input from the elected
officials. 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.
Co -Chair Rosales requested that the Commission provide any of their additional notes on the separate
input memo to the Mayor by the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
None
DISCUSSION/CONTINUED DISCUSSION
The Commission continued to discuss the salary and benefits for the Mayor and Council positions.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that most cities do not provide health insurance for their Council. There
was further discussion by the Commission about the ranking order of salaries when compared to the
comparator cities for both the Mayor and Council. The Commission discussed that the Council appeared
to fall in the median of the salary range compared to the comparator cities and that it appeared that the
both the Council and Council President's compensation were in line with the median.
GOALS FOR THE NEXT MEETING
The following items were determined for the next meeting's agenda:
1. Verification of the chart of information on salary information [Council] provided by Commissioner
Hunter.
2. Possible further discussion of options (if any) for providing Council Members any additional
benefits.
Page 4
3. Review/discuss the Mayor's salary and benefits information as there is a short time frame (two
weeks) until the last meeting.
4. Review/discuss the presentation to Council and the memo to be filed with the City Clerk's Office.
5. Have Commissioner Middleton provide information to the Commission as to the basic selection
process to be provided on the City's website.
OTHER
Upcoming Critical Dates:
6/5/14
5:30
Meeting
6/12/14
5:30
Meeting*
*The 6112114 meeting was cancelled due to schedule conflicts and rescheduled for 6117114.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Page 5