|
Council Minutes of 4/18/2006
<br />Ordinance 2006-82 from committee, and the motion was seconded by
<br />Councilman Gareau. Roll call: Talton, yes; Gareau, yes; Jones, yes; Miller, yes;
<br />Ryan, no; Orlowski, yes; Barker, yes. The motion passed with six yes votes and
<br />one no vote. Councilman Ryan made a motion that the amount involving the IT
<br />position be raised to what the Mayor had requested, $45,040. Councilman Gareau
<br />seconded the motion. Law Director Dubelko said he believed that amount was
<br />already in the legislation. Councilman Gareau withdrew his second. Councilman
<br />Talton agreed that it was currently $45,000 in the legislation, and his previous
<br />motion had simply relieved the legislation from committee. (Mr. Ryan's motion
<br />died for lack of a second.) Councilman Talton made a motion to amend
<br />Ordinance 2006-82 in the line item for Information Systems Administration to
<br />$41,000 annually and the appropriate benefits adjusted accordingly and to be
<br />effective as of the passage of this ordinance. The motion was seconded by
<br />Councilman Gareau. Councilman Miller asked for clarification if that would be
<br />the annual salary to include any increases that otherwise might come in
<br />September. Councilman Talton said that was correct, this would be the annual
<br />salary. (At this point, Councilman Ryan questioned that, stating he thought the
<br />budget had been passed 7-0 and thought it included a reduction in that position.
<br />Councilman Talton said no. Mayor O'Grady attempted to speak on the matter.
<br />Councilman Ryan called for the question, which Councilman Miller seconded.
<br />Roll call on the motion to call the question: Ryan, yes; Miller, yes; Barker, yes;
<br />Gareau, yes; Jones, yes; Orlowski, yes; Talton, yes. The motion to call the
<br />question passed unanimously) The meeting continued with the roll call on the
<br />motion to amend Ordinance 2006-82 with reference to the IT position: Talton,
<br />yes; Gareau, yes, with comment, that his support has remained throughout the
<br />entire process. He believed, and still believes, that $45,000 is the appropriate
<br />level of compensation for the position. It goes back to a history of his looking at
<br />people who had the job before, what the responsibilities are. It need not
<br />necessarily focus on an individual. He knows he is one of two people on City
<br />Council who believe that $45,000 is an appropriate pay. That being said, to stand
<br />on $45,000 and risk having the increase at all take effect, is not something he is
<br />willing to do. If he could convince the members of Council to do $45,000, he
<br />would do so. Since he can't, he will proceed to support the $41,000 and hope that
<br />at some point in time in the future, perhaps next year, it can be reviewed and
<br />increased accordingly. Roll call continued: Janes, yes; Barker, yes; Orlowski,
<br />yes; Ryan, no, with comment, he is starting to feel like Caesar here. Roll call
<br />continued: Miller, yes, with comment, that he has wrestled with this from the day
<br />it was presented. He feels the raise that would have brought this individual up to
<br />$39,000 which was discussed in the original appropriation hearings was generous.
<br />It was a pay raise of roughly 20%. He believes he might have chang~i his mind
<br />had Council been advised earlier in the year that there was some inequity in the
<br />pay as it existed then. However, that was never forthcoming. He thinks there are
<br />many employees in this city who do a very good job at what they're charged to do
<br />as this individual apparently does. They are very valuable; they have to wear
<br />many hats, and any one of them probably are also due a 20% raise. It's extremely
<br />difficult for him to go beyond that; however, in an effort to resolve this and put it
<br />9
<br />„~:>_~*
<br />
|