09/17/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 9/17/2002 ,~. Fund. This particulaz issue has nothing to do with the General Fund, and he thinks, if Council wants to address it, they should address it in a separate ordinance. Roll call continued: Nashaz, yes. President O'Grady announced that, with a vote of 3 yeas and 3 nays, understanding that Mr. Gazeau's vote does not count in this total, the Mayor's veto is sustained. ^ The next item vetoed by the Mayor was the amendment to remove $5,100 from the line item for the wages of the Mayor's secretary. (The money would then be placed into the Police Department's staffing line item.) Presidem O'Grady put the question to Council: "Shall Ordinance 2002-117 be passed notwithstanding the veto of the Mayor with regard to the $5,100 that was removed from the salary of the secretazy to the Mayor." Roll call: Limpert, no, with the comment that he feels it's highly discriminatory to single out one employee for a pay cut in mid-yeaz. Roll call continued: Miller: yes, Dailey, no; Gazeau, yes, first noting that his vote will not count, but he does have a duty to vote. He had the occasion to run some numbers on the computer and came up with the following with respect to the Mayor's veto of this particular issue: The original line item for the secretary position in 2002 was $31,387. At that rate, the secretary for the Mayor's office is paid $15.09 per hour. There was no secretary in the position in the year 2001. This amount equates to $2.45 more per hour than the previous six secretaries employed by the Mayor since January 1 of 1998. The position was at a 39% pay increase when that individual lateraled over from another office at City Hall. Prior to January 1 of 2002, the Mayor, despite his claims at how integral this is to his office and its function, did not even have a full-time secretary in his office and had not had one since September 15, 2000, a period of well over 15 months without this instrumental person in their office. Considering the $5,100 reduction, the new line item for 2002 will be $26,287. At that rate, the average hourly rate, retroactive to the beginning of the year, will be $12.84 per hour. Ironically, this is the same amount of money that the last person who held that position made when she left I S months prior. It is also tied for the highest amount paid per hour to any of the Mayor's secretaries since January 1, 1998. Historically, administrative Secretary II's would be paid 2.5% more than the equivalent bargaining unit Secretary II with the same number of service. With this individual's service, he would be entitled to $12.08 an hour, which is 2 1/2% more than the bargaining unit secretary with the same amount of experience. He is making 55 cents more per hour than a similar bargaining unit person with the same amount of experience and 55 cents more than when he left the Commission's office. It is true that Council appropriated and approved $31,387 in eazly 2002. But this is a budget crisis. Budget crises call for drastic action, and this was one of the recommendations made by the Mayor's own directors. However, the recommendation was never forwarded to Council. Roll call continued: Nashar, yes; McKay, no, noting that it is the Mayor's discretion to pay his secretary what he feels the person is worth. He feels it is very strange that one secretary out of all in the non-bargaining unit was singled out for a rate reduction. He cannot in good conscience vote for discrimination against one person. Had the directors and asked for a reduced rate for their own secretaries, it would have been a different story. Roll call continued: Kasler, yes with ~ comment that the veto represents replacing less money into the police wage line item and, therefore, not replacing the school guards and auxiliary police. Although the 12