04/06/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4/6/99 ~, it is important to mention that it is common knowledge that this ordinance erroneously never adjusts the bottom range by the cost of living leaving approximately a $20,000 range spread for most of the positions listed. • Council acted as if the mid $50,000's was an unreasonably high amount of money for the city to pay. Yet, upon review of the 1998 W-2 register, approximately 105 of the 337 full-time city employees had W-2 earnings of $50,000 or more, excluding directors and elected officials. When Council in committee meetings was asked what data supports their position of $35,000 to appropriate for an annual salary, no concrete or specific response was presented other than one who said, "I called a friend at John Carroll." Therefore, we are left to wonder why they would not rely on the person elected by the people of this city with 13 years of direct financial expertise to set the range that she felt appropriate based on detailed and persuasive facts gathered from third parties presented that support her position on the range? She is left to question whether they really want the finances of this city to improve or are they just providing lip service on their fiscal concerns. In the Auditor of State's management letter comments since 1993, they have stated the city should consider hiring another degreed professional with government accounting experience. The key words here are "with government accounting experience." The entire proposal was presented considering a person with 4-6 years experience. If Council believed this to be a valid, worthwhile proposal, then how can they realistically expect to pay a person with 4-6 years of experience $35,000 based on the third party data presented? Logic tells you that most people do not change jobs for less money and more or equal responsibility. There may be a person with a quality of life issue, but she feels you need to plan for the realistic expectation the data supports; and, if that diamond in the rough applies for the position, then you make an offer accordingly. She will advertise and do her best to attract a qualified candidate with what Council has deemed appropriate for such a position. However, she does ask Council publicly to reconsider the range and amending the appropriations if the quality of candidates applying are not what will achieve the goals outlined and agreed by all to be of importance when the proposal was discussed. Mr. McKay commented that hiring somebody with a degree and four years of experience might be more qualifications than required for the Finance Director. Finance Director Copfer said that f ve years experience are required. Mr. McKay said that we are not looking to hire someone from the Big Four accounting firms. He noted that we were able to hire an Assistant Law Director for $25,000. Mr. Limpert said that the attorney would probably have other income, and he felt it was imperative that we have people in the Finance Department working primarily for the city. Mr. McKay said he felt Council was a bit gun shy of promises that the city will save money-they have heard that before for other projects/issues and it has not come to pass. He wants proof. Mr. Gareau said he agreed with the large majority of Mrs. Copfer's comments, except for disagreement about the seriousness of Council's commitment to address financial concerns. He is the sponsor of Ordinances 99-44 and 99-45 which address the position of Assistant Finance Director and feels very strongly in this position. He also believes that the salary range is low. However, he drafted the legislation in that manner because this issue had been 4