03/30/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Council Minutes of 3/30/99 ,~ that her qualifications and profession warranted the annual salary that was currently being ~,~ paid for that position and although he offered that salary, she was asked to accept a significantly lower salary for the first six months. After this probationary period, if she wished to continue and the Mayor chose to have her remain, the appropriate salary would be instituted. The point that was missed in the report presented by the Mayor and Finance Director is that it was a condition of employment arranged and agreed upon between the Mayor and Council, which at that time included Mr. Musial. Mrs. Kasler had no input into that issue. She feels that the majority of Council does remember that it was presented as a condition and offer of employment. She had nothing to do with it-it was a policy created by Council. If a Council member had an objection to that policy at the time, she assumes it was taken up with the Mayor. With regard to the other percentage raises that occurred in 1991, a little more efficient research would have revealed that all the raises reflected in the report were based upon the recommendation of a committee appointed to address administrative salary ranges and positions. It was a total restructuring of the administrative ordinance. It had nothing to do with the specific individuals in the positions; rather, it reflected the positions and underpayment in those particular areas. In both of these situations, she sincerely hopes that, if anyone had an objection, they would have explained it at that time. However, she is more concerned that, following the rigorous review of the budget that called for several corrections, this Council made its position very clear, because the budget required the infusion of a worker's compensation windfall and funds from other sources simply to balance it, that it was not the year to include excessive merit raises (that is now the correct term) for any individuals. In several of the initial Finance Committee meetings, these concerns were clearly expressed and Council moved forward with an eye on those concerns. She further questions the reasoning behind this lobby for excessive raises for one or two administrators which is: (1) drastically inconsistent with other administrative raises; (2) appears on the budget that could not be balanced without the assistance from outside monies; (3) appears on a budget that, when first submitted by the Mayor for Council's approval, reflected a decrease in the police force which jeopardized community policing and the school resources officers and included a potential reduction in the fire prevention bureau and failed to address major concerns of the Fire Department and of the Recreation Department. (Council eventually took a small step toward resolving the Recreation concerns by examining the budget very closely.) Further, and most importantly, this is not 1991 or 1994-it is 1999. Everyone here is concerned and obligated to look at 1999 budget revenues and expenditures and overall financial status of the city. If the administration is spending its time looking at the past, a different time and a different financial environment, then she suggests there is a misunderstanding on the part of the administration with regard to the dynamics of city government. She does not believe in looking back through arear-view mirror. It is not relevant. The report is not relevant. And, if in fact the appropriations revision was delivered a day late giving her less time to review it because the Finance Director had to respond to a directive to look into the past, then everyone can understand why she objected and strenuously now objects to the original proposal of a salary of $50,000 to $60,000 for an Assistant Finance Director. Mayor Musial commented that, as a member of Council at that time, he has no recollection of anyone from the administration coming to him and indicating that a