Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole October 28 2008 amWHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee Of The Whole October 28, 2008 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:31 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Sam Crawford Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Seth Fleetwood Bob Kelly 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SALARY SCHEDULES RECENTLY APPROVED FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES (AB2008 -018) Weimer stated the Council held a number of executive sessions before July 1, 2008 to discuss the unrepresented resolution. Council was clear it wanted to no longer have the 101 percent policy for the Executive's salary, and the Executive's salary was to be based on the same increase received by other unrepresented staff for 2008. The Council voted on that on July 8, 2008. The Council read in the newspaper that there was a 101 percent increase effective July 1, 2008. The Council was clear about its desire to change the policy as they had talks throughout the spring and in June. He asked why the Council wasn't told about the increase scheduled for July 1. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Council held a number of meetings that covered a series of options related to the compensation of elected officials. Out of those conversations came the language that the administration ultimately submitted to and was approved by the County Council. Weimer stated no one disagrees that the language approved on July 8 was other than what they exactly intended all along. The Council's intent was clear before that to base the Executive's salary increase on a percent increase equal to the rest of the unrepresented staff, not the Prosecutor's salary. However, the Executive's salary was based on the Prosecutor's salary. Wendy Wefer - Clinton, Administrative Services Division, stated staff originally met with the Council on March 25. At that time, they talked about key points for the unrepresented matrix. She sent a memo to the Council on April 11, which included proposed substantive changes, including the things they talked about in executive session and other things they didn't get a chance to talk about. There was no change to the Executive's salary policy at that point. She received an email from Councilmember Weimer on April 17, who wanted to put the resolution back into the Committee of the Whole. Staff met with the Committee of the Whole in executive session on April 22 to discuss the resolution. At that point, they mainly Special Committee of the Whole; 10/28/2008, Page 1 1 talked about the other elected officials and how they were going to be treated, given that 2 the Prosecutor's salary was going to go up. The Committee members indicated they'd 3 heard from some elected officials that they wanted to go back to a percentage tie that 4 existed a number of years ago. 5 6 Since that time, they have gotten rid of the percentage tie and implemented 7 realignment language to allow the County to look at their salaries every year and compare 8 them to positions in six comparable counties. 9 10 Following that, they met in again in June. During that executive session, staff 11 handed out key proposals to consider for the unrepresented staff. The handout included 12 increases, the retention premium, and some other things. There were three options 13 presented for elected officials. The administration wasn't sure that going back to the 14 percentage increase was the best way to go. They'd heard complaints from the elected 15 officials that their salaries were falling behind those of their counterparts in other counties. 16 The realignment language was a good tool to keep in place. The administration presented 17 three other options on June 3. The committee didn't like those options, and wanted to 18 consider other options. 19 20 After that, the administration met individually with a number of councilmembers. 21 There was a lot going on during executive session, and it was difficult to talk in detail about 22 some of the options. The administration came back to the committee on June 17 with five 23 options. At the end of the meeting, there was a decision to remove the 101 percent policy 24 for the Executive's salary. That's what the administration did when it presented the 25 resolution to the Council on July 8. However, the 2007 unrepresented resolution was in 26 force on July 1. The new resolution did not go into effect until July 8. 27 28 Weimer asked if it was clear in Ms. Wefer - Clinton's mind that the Council wanted to 29 de- couple the Executive's salary and Prosecutor's salary, so the Executive would receive the 30 same salary increase as everyone else for 2008. Wefer - Clinton stated it was clear in her 31 mind that they wanted to de- couple the salaries, but there was nothing she could do at that 32 point in time on June 17, because there was no resolution before the Council to vote on. 33 34 Weimer asked if Ms. Wefer - Clinton ever told the councilmembers about the July 1 35 salary increase. Wefer - Clinton stated the councilmembers brought the issue up. She 36 assumed they knew about it. The councilmembers had elected officials come to them and 37 talk to them about the increase that would take effect. 38 39 Weimer stated he doesn't ever remember being told that this salary increase would 40 occur on July 1, or that it would be an automatic raise if the Council didn't pass something 41 before July 1. Wefer - Clinton stated the administration handed out a chart to the 42 councilmembers during an executive session. The chart clearly indicated that the 43 Prosecutor's salary was going up on July 1. 44 45 Brenner stated she remembers that executive session. She made a motion to freeze 46 the salaries of everyone earning over $100,000, which would have included the Executive 47 and other administrators. The motion didn't pass. None of the councilmembers were told 48 that the Executive's salary would go up. It bothers her that the administration is bringing 49 forward only the things it wants changed to benefit the people asking for the 50 recommendation. The Executive wasn't in the room at the time. 51 52 Also at the time, she objected to having this discussion in executive session. It was 53 a conflict of interest. She talked to the attorney, who said it wasn't. Technically, it wasn't a Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 2 conflict of interest. However, it was improper for the Council to receive recommendations from the exact same people who will directly benefit if they pass that recommendation in executive session, without being able to talk about it outside of executive session. The part-time councilmembers make about $17,000. Some of them work more than part-time. It's impossible for them to decipher everything, so they completely depend on the staff to provide any information they should know, whether or not the administration wants the Council to know it. Wefer - Clinton stated they are talking about the 2008 salary resolution. The motion to freeze salaries had to do with the 2009 -2010 salary resolution. Brenner stated it was about both. She brought it up in the spring, too. She's brought it up every time they've talked. Weimer stated the Human Resources Division staff asked the Prosecutor to provide insight on whether to use the July 1 number or the intent of the Council. He asked why the Human Resources Division staff consulted with the Prosecuting Attorney. Wefer - Clinton stated she recommends that the Council talks to the Prosecuting Attorney for a legal interpretation. Weimer stated he was told that the Human Resources Division staff and Executive's Office consulted with the Prosecuting Attorney about a decision between July 1 or July 8. Wefer - Clinton stated she was not involved in that. Caskey- Schreiber stated the full truth wasn't disclosed to the councilmembers. An injustice was done by withholding information from the County Council that was pertinent to its discussion. It may have been spelled out in the paperwork, but she was under the impression that the majority of the Council was clear about de- coupling the Executive's salary and the Prosecutor's salary. The majority of the Council was clear that it did not want the Executive's salary to be what it is. That salary went forward without anyone telling the Council about it. That is information the Council should have had at that time, even if there wasn't anything that the Council could do about it because of timing. The councilmembers depend on the staff to provide the information it needs to make decisions. The councilmembers can't be aware of every little deadline that is coming up. She even suspects that the resolution was stalled. It doesn't feel open and honest. Wefer - Clinton stated the administration originally brought the agreement to the Council in April. The Council pulled it from approval. Caskey- Schreiber stated it did, for a few modifications to a small group of employees. Crawford asked who in the Human Resources Division and Executive's Office went through the process of changing the Executive's pay amount on July 1. He asked how that process works. Wefer - Clinton stated she was on vacation on July 1. She believes the Prosecuting Attorney signed it. Crawford asked the mechanics of changing the Executive's pay. Wefer - Clinton stated there is a change form. She doesn't know who from the Executive's Office filled out the change form. She imagines one of their clerical staff filled it out. Desler stated there was a change form, based on consulting with the Executive about when this would take effect. The Executive does follow the Prosecuting Attorney's salary. He and the Executive had a discussion with the Prosecutor. They addressed it in late June, before the final action of the Council. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 3 Crawford stated it sounds like the administration is saying that this was an automatic process because the Council hadn't adopted another resolution. He's trying to understand how that process happened when the key players knew what the Council wanted. After the Council had the discussion about the Executive's salary, neither Mr. Desler nor Ms. Wefer - Clinton ever talked to him about it again. He would like to know how that form went through the process. Maybe someone who wasn't at the executive session meeting does this, and did think it was an automatic process. He asked who gives the order for this process. Desler stated it was prepared by Human Resources Division staff after consultation with the Prosecutor about how they are to handle this under the current law that exists in the organization. The advice the administration got was from the Prosecutor. Dave McEachran, Prosecuting Attorney, stated he had a conversation with Executive Kremen when the bill passed through the State legislature. The bill provided that all the prosecutors would be linked to the Superior Court judges. He wanted to make sure the administration was aware of that. The bill provided the first increase on July 1 and a subsequent increase on September 1. He contacted Executive Kremen, who hadn't been aware of the bill in the legislature. They had a discussion about the operative dates that would occur of those two different increases. At one point, the Executive asked if he, the Executive, had to take the increase, because it would be controversial. The resolution in effect at the time provided the same thing that all previous resolutions provided since the Charter was adopted, that the Executive's salary would be 101 percent of the Prosecuting Attorney's salary. The Council did not approve the salary resolution in March or April. When the effective date of the bill occurred on July 1, it was automatic that the salary increase take place. Executive Kremen was to receive 101 percent of any salary the Prosecuting Attorney received. That was automatic by operation of law. He told that to the administration, including Executive Kremen and Mr. Desler. Crawford asked if Mr. McEachran recalls the date that happened. McEachran stated he doesn't recall the exact date. It was about the time when the bill passed in April or May. Once the bill was passed, an appropriation was required for the bill to go forward. That would have been done April or May. Nelson stated the Prosecutor's Office has responsibility for the Council as well as the administration. He asked why the Prosecutor went to the administration with this bill and not to the Council to discuss the fiscal impacts of this bill to the County budget. "this is disturbing, because they can't operate as a Council that deals with budgetary concerns if they don't receive the proper information. McEachran stated his office contacts the Council continually. He has attorneys who deal with the Council on many issues. This issue and the issue of his salary related specifically to the administration being aware of that. His salary increase did not impact the County because the State pays it. Whether the County wanted to match that was up to the County. This related specific to legislation that the State paid for. It would only have an effect on the County in that Executive Kremen's salary was involved. The salary discussion would go through the process when the Council looks at the salary, which is in the ordinary process of the work. The other elected officials told him that they had contacted each of the councilmembers about this. They talked to a lot of the councilmembers about the fact that this would go up. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 4 Crawford stated that's not true. Weimer stated the key question is whether anyone in the Human Resources Division or the Executive's Office ever let the Prosecutor know that it was the Council's wish that Executive Kremen did not receive this increase. McEachran stated Executive Kremen indicated there would be some controversy about it and asked if had to accept the increase. He advised that unless the Council changed the resolution, that's the way the law went. Weimer asked if the Prosecutor had no knowledge that the Council didn't want this increase to go into effect when the change form came to him in July. McEachran stated the knowledge he had was that it would be controversial. He can't say the change form actually came to him. His office approves many things to form without looking at the policy. He imagined that someone in his office approved it. It ordinarily would not come to him. Fleetwood stated he understands that Executive Kremen's salary has been at the 101 percent since July 1. He asked why the Executive's salary wasn't changed on July 8. McEachran stated he hadn't looked at the funds. He assumes that it was changed. At the July 1 date, Executive Kremen would have still been at the 101 percent. level. When the next resolution was passed on July 8, that should have been uncoupled and there should not have been a share in any other increases. Therefore, Executive Kremen's salary should not have stepped up in September when his salary and the Supreme Court salary stepped up again. Weimer stated that is correct, according to the Human Resources Division. The July 8 increase may have been retroactive on top of the 101 percent that happened on July 1. Brenner stated other elected officials pointed out the increase. In the past, councilmembers have been told that the 101 percent policy has been in place for a number of years, such as eight or nine years. That doesn't mean the policy was always in place. The councilmembers don't remember when that policy change happened. McEachran stated that 101 percent policy was in effect when the County government changed from the commissioners to the Council and Executive. The Executive was believed to be a position that would have the highest pay. His salary was set at 100 percent. The other officials all took a percentage of his salary. The Executive was highest paid by one percent. He contacted Executive Kremen about his State salary to make sure the administration was aware of it, so if the funds came in from the State, the administration would know what it is for. This wasn't the County match. This was purely from the State. Brenner stated the only discussion she recalls about the Executive being at 101 percent, and that it might change, was from another elected official. She wasn't given a time frame. She assumed they would have the discussion. No one mentioned a time frame during the discussion. They got it back during the time frame. Crawford stated he had a meeting with another elected official. In the course of that meeting, this increase was mentioned. The administration never brought this up proactively. The elected officials did not make a proactive effort to contact the councilmembers. During an executive session discussion, the Council was very clear about what it wanted. He asked if the administration contacted Mr. McEachran after that initial conversation. McEachran stated he had a conversation about how this would work. When the increases came, it would be an increase related to the resolution. That was discussed during a meeting. He looked at it, and thought it was an operation of law. Executive Kremen wanted to know if he had to take that raise. He told Executive Kremen that the increase would happen, and the resolution is in effect. Executive Kremen expressed that he Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 5 thought it would be controversial. He advised Executive Kremen that, from a legal standpoint, that is how it would be because of the resolution. Crawford stated they discussed the history of the 101 percent at length in executive session. That has been the overall policy since the early 1990's. McEachran stated he recalled that policy since the beginning. Crawford stated he doesn't recall a State salary to the Prosecutor ever being changed this dramatically. McEachran stated it's never been changed. Crawford stated they dealt with this specifically in a meeting. The Council gave specific direction. He asked if the County Council clearly sets the salary. McEachran stated it does. Weimer stated the discussion of decoupling the Executive's salary from the Prosecutor's had nothing to do with Executive Kremen's performance. It had to do with the big increase the Prosecutor was being given by the State, and the smaller increase for all the other department heads and elected officials. They didn't want to tie those salaries to the Executive's salary. Kelly asked if the Prosecutor's staff who was advising the Council was obligated to inform the Council of new information related to a pending Council action, in light of the fact that it was conflicting information. He assumes that the Prosecutor's staff and Executive's staff knew that this existing information was conflicting. McEachran stated his staff doesn't work with financial matters. His staff looks at legal questions. They don't prepare and perform these documents for the Council. If the Council has questions, his staff tries to answer all the questions. Kelly stated they are the ones who called the Council into executive session. McEachran stated that is done during negotiations. The law provides that discussion in executive session. However, his staff doesn't provide all the documents and do the financial work. If the Council has a question, he will research and provide the best legal answer. His staff isn't going to step forward and provide financial information. Brenner stated this is very different from collective bargaining. She spoke to the open public meeting ombudsman, who is an Assistant Attorney General in the Attorney General's office about this being a conflict of interest. The Prosecutor's staff indicated there is no conflict of interest because the Council makes the decision, not the administration. However, it's a conflict and is not collective bargaining because the people from that part of the administration will directly benefit. In collective bargaining, the administration is the middle between the bargaining unit and the Council. She's uncomfortable having these recommendations come from the people who benefit. McEachran stated that the Council decides on the budget and salaries. That's the Council's role. It is not a conflict, even if the people who benefit are asking. Brenner stated it doesn't have to be a conflict to make it worthy of being in open session rather than executive session. It is different, according to the Attorney General's Office, who will provide a formal response to her letters if the Prosecutor's Office asks for it. McEachran stated he and Mr. Gibson have gone through Councilmember Brenner's request. They are of the opinion that it is appropriate for Executive Session. There is no reason for a formal response from the Attorney General's Office. This can be done in executive session, as long as it comes back out in a public forum. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Caskey- Schreiber stated she feels like the Council has been hoodwinked into this situation. It is uncomfortable and regrettable. The trust was breached. It was shocking to hear that the Council policy was ignored. She would like to hear how the administration plans to address this. Also, she requests that they remove all salary agreements from the Consent Agenda in the future. In every resolution they pass, they must have a link to the jobs, salary grade, and an identified salary increase or decrease to be adopted for that year. Link every percentage increase to each classification. The Council needs to provide clearer direction. She is more than willing to do that out in the open, not in executive session. They must have a more open process so they can reflect on the minutes and make sure there is no doubt about a Council directive. Crawford stated he would generally agree to that for the elected officials. He prefers to allow the Prosecutor to continue to negotiate with the newspaper or Attorney General's Office about the non - elected officials. That is tied directly to union negotiations. Regarding elected officials, he can't think of any good reason why that shouldn't be a completely transparent and separate process from the rest of the employees. Those salaries should be well -known by the public. He would support Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber's proposal if it was limited in the future to the elected officials. Prepare a resolution that is discussed like any other resolution, on the record. He also feels very betrayed. He has always supported Executive Kremen's administration. He knows for a fact that Executive Kremen knew about the executive session discussion. Executive Kremen called him about it. On July 1, when the Executive started getting those bigger checks, he knew the Council's intention, but took the checks anyway. That wasn't right. He will still trust the Executive in the long term. He is a capable and able administrator of this county, but he is let down. Desler stated that the suggestion to split out the adjustments for the elected officials, as Councilmembers Caskey- Schreiber and Crawford suggested, is something the administration proposed earlier to the Council, in June. The Council rejected that proposal. The administration is happy to address the process in any way the Council sees as appropriate. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated so many things have been brought up. He is also disappointed. His intentions were always positive and laudable. He appreciates the Prosecutor for providing information that hopefully explains how things got to where they are. His recalls that in his conversation with the Prosecutor, he said that he was extremely reluctant to accept the pay raise that went in because of the State legislation. He asked Prosecutor McEachran if he had to take the increase. Prosecutor McEachran stated the he did have to take the increase. He asked the Prosecutor if he had the power to change it. The Prosecutor told him he did not, and that only the Council could make that change. His reasoning wasn't about a controversy. It was his desire to have a good positive, productive, working relationship with the Council. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Kremen continued to state that he understands the concern. That's why he talked about this to Prosecutor McEachran. His ability to work with the Council is imperative. The Council had all sorts of discussions and contact with the press, without giving him a chance to explain. He tried to avoid the disappointment, frustration, and anger the Councilmembers harbor. He proposed to work with the Council to resolve this so everyone feels they can live with whatever solution they come up with. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 7 Fleetwood asked if Executive Kremen supported the Council's decision to uncouple the two salaries. Kremen stated he didn't support it, but he wanted to live by it. Money is not his motivation. His love and concern for this community is his motivation. He walked away from an offer of $750,000 last year because his reputation means more than money. He was concerned about not putting his staff in a stressful and awkward situation, and because he wanted his reputation impeccable. It's hurtful, offensive, and somewhat insulting for the Councilmembers to think his administration was less than honest. The Council was made aware of the discrepancy or increase in the pay months ago. The Council had an opportunity. It had a resolution for at least three months. That was plenty of time to make a decision on a fairly simple resolution that they do every year. The Council chose not to act. He is sincere when he says he will do everything he can to work with the Council to resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction, so they can move forward. Caskey- Schreiber asked why Executive Kremen didn't come to the Council when he knew he was getting the 101 percent. She asked why the Council had to find out about it in the Bellingham Herald. Kremen stated the Council was given information that clearly noted that these raises would kick in on July 1. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Executive's staff never explained that to the Council. Kremen stated that is not true. Caskey- Schreiber stated it is true. Furthermore, the Council did not hold on to the unrepresented resolution for three months. The Council kept asking where it was. Crawford stated he gave the administration information, and later they said they didn't understand it. This is getting ridiculous. They must move on. They all agree on the facts. Move forward with what they're going to do about it. Take the emotion out of it. The fact is that the Council decided something and the Executive and his staff were aware of it. The Council gets so much information each year. He does his best, which may not be good enough, because they've allowed something to occur. He asked if Executive Kremen knows the dates in which he signed the checks and took thousands and thousands of dollars more than what the Council authorized. There is no question the Executive has the law on his side. The Prosecutor said Executive Kremen is in the right. However, the Council knew what it was doing. The Council also knew that Executive Kremen knew what the Council was doing. Executive Kremen hung up the phone on him that night they discussed it, because he was so mad. Kremen stated that was after the executive session. This paper was distributed to the Council. It was a simple two -page paper with lots of information distributed June 3. It clearly states the date of July 1 and the different wages. Brenner stated that the Councilmembers had to hand back that paper and weren't allowed to keep it. They had it just during Executive Session. The staff took hers away from her. They had it for 15 minutes. Nelson stated the important thing is to work together to resolve this thing. He thinks Executive Kremen has a concern about this increase, given the public's feelings and what's going on in the world today. They must solve the problem so it doesn't happen in the future. He did not- agree with the increase. He didn't know about a resolution that travels forward. Each time, the Council adopts ordinances for biennial budgets. Usually, those are brought forward, and the Council takes care of them. The Council should make a recommendation to the administration, because the Council is still responsible for approving the budget. The administration should rectify this issue in terms of the budget. If the administration is willing, straighten this out so the public knows they are all working together. He's not happy with the Prosecutor's Office. He respects Mr. McEachran, but Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 8 legal counsel about resolution should be shared with the Council as well as the administration. Get this solved for the public's sake. Crawford moved to request the administration to present a salary schedule with annual totals of the Executive's salary for the remainder of 2008, which adjusts the remaining pay, reflective of the amount the Council approved, about 7 percent. It would be based on an increase over the 2007 schedule that reflects the formula the Council approved. Show where the Executive's remaining paychecks will end up to the end of the year to equal that total. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney, stated he heard talk about a salary reduction for elected officials. Article 11, Section 8 of the State Constitution addresses the issue of salary increases. It specifically indicates that the salary of any County officer shall not be diminished after his election or during his term of office. Weimer stated the Council feels it was hoodwinked into a salary increase effective July 1. He asked if the Council is now stuck with that, because of the Constitution. He asked if that is the bottom line. Gibson stated the State Constitution says the salary of any County officer shall not be diminished after his election or during his term of office. Brenner stated there are always pieces of State law and the Constitution all over the place. She would like a yes or no answer about whether there is anything the Council can do to put the salary back to the way it was approved. The County approved what it did by resolution, which has no force of law. In dealing with the Executive, the Council has the right to put his salary at seven times the Council's salary. She asked if they can do that. Gibson stated the Council increases salaries per Article 30, Section One of the State Constitution. The State Constitution prohibits the diminishment of a salary. Brenner asked if the Council has no way to put the Executive's salary back to how the Council approved it. Gibson stated that is correct. The increase took place on July 1, 2008. Brenner asked if the Executive can refuse the increase. Gibson stated the Executive gets the check. What the Executive chooses to do with that check is up to the Executive. Brenner asked if there is no provision in State law that allows an elected official to voluntarily reduce his or her own salary. Gibson stated the check is written. One does not voluntarily reduce a salary. There is no option in State law that he is aware of. Caskey- Schreiber moved to give direction to the Human Resources Division for future salary employee agreements: list job classifications with salary rates; link the job classification with the salary rates; define the salaries specifically in the resolutions; define the increase percentage in the resolutions, and; remove the resolution from the consent agenda. Weimer stated bring that motion forward in a resolution. Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion and stated she will bring forward her motion in the form of a resolution. Crawford stated he withdraws his motion in protest. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 9 Brenner stated she has a lot of respect for Prosecutor Gibson, but she doesn't agree with him. The Council's intent, which was clearly made before July 1, was not carried out. If they wanted legal recourse, they do have it. Draw up something that freezes the salaries of the Executive and the Council to the amount that existed before July 2008. The Council is obligated to the public to be careful with their money. They can find laws that allow them to do that. Crawford moved to rescind the 2009 unrepresented resolution that was approved last week, pending a review of the elected official salaries for 2009. He doesn't intend to do anything that affects the pay situation of anyone other than elected officials. Kremen stated that for the greater good of the County and for the institution of the County government, they have the most challenging budget decisions to make in recent history. It would be a shame for the Council and Executive to be sidetracked and polarized because of the seriousness of these issues. He would like to suggest to the Council that he would donate the difference between what the Council approved for his salary and what he receives as a salary, minus the taxes, to the Humane Society. His donation would make up the gap between what the Humane Society says it needs to carry out the County contract and what the County has in the budget. He offers means to show the Council that they did not try to do anything misleading. They've been forthright, candid, and patient. It's time to move past this issue. He sincerely and genuinely wants to work with the Council to tackle these issues. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would support that gesture. She supports the motion. Brenner stated the County is still out that amount of money. The Executive's donation should go to existing expenses. Fleetwood asked if they already vetted the question of a fair, modest increase consistent with others throughout the organization, and decided on seven percent. He asked if that has already been addressed. Crawford amended his motion and moved to rescind the resolution, and request that the administration prepare a similar resolution that uncouples or separates the elected officials' salaries. Everything they adopted continues to go forward, with the exception of the elected officials. He would like to look again at the salaries of all the elected officials. He is concerned that the disparity between their salaries and Executive Kremen's salary is enormous. They need to look at the entire thing for 2009. Nelson stated he is not inclined to increase any other salaries. Many citizens aren't seeing more than three or four percent increase in their own salaries, at the most. They can do that in the future if necessary. Crawford amended his motion and moved to rescind the resolution, with no conditions. Gibson stated another approach is to amend the resolution as approved, rather than rescind the resolution, if the intent is to leave a major portion of it in place. Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to look at the entire resolution again. Make sure all the increases are equal. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 10 Brenner stated the Council can write a very simple resolution that states the positions and the salaries. Kremen stated that if the Council continues to dwell and focus its time and attention on this issue, there will be negative impacts to the morale of the 125 employees that are not elected officials. Now the Council is talking about revisiting and changing the entire thing, after they've already approved the resolution. He is willing to give up the portion of his salary that isn't the wish of the Council, so they can move past this. If they are going to revisit the entire unrepresented resolution, it's a poor reflection on the Council. It shows the Council's inability to make decisions and be decisive. The Council is looking like it doesn't know what it wants. Fleetwood stated that on the narrow issue of whether or not to look at this again, he's inclined to agree. They are here today because of an issue with Executive Kremen's salary. They've discussed it and have ideas about how to address it. Reopening the entire resolution, which the majority of the Council was satisfied with previously, seems inappropriate. Move on. He won't support the motion. Caskey- Schreiber stated this isn't all about Executive Kremen. It's part of the broken process she tried to describe. It was buried in the Consent Agenda. The hour was late. They talked a little about it in the Finance Committee. She explained some of her concerns then. She thought they were going to have another opportunity to weigh it on its own merits. She forgot to pull it out of the Consent Agenda, so it flew through. She's felt bad about that ever since. It's not related to Executive Kremen. She wants to review it. There are different economic circumstances now. She doesn't know if it's right to give raises to these folks just because they are in a five -year contract with another sector of employees. She supports the motion. Brenner stated the changes being suggested and a salary freeze have little to do with most of the unrepresented employees. She's heard from many of the unrepresented employees who are very upset because they are getting a very small increase. Other people at the top, who are making a lot more money, are getting a larger percentage increase on a lot more money. The morale out there is already low. Weimer stated he will support the motion. They need to fix this. He has no intention of changing the vast majority of the employees in the resolution. He agrees that they don't want to dredge that all up, but the Council must fix this. Kelly stated he agrees with Councilmember Fleetwood. He doesn't know that they will be able to limit the scope of these discussions. He's made a decision and is willing to stick by that. He agrees that they do have more important things to do. They have a budget to adopt in a short time. There isn't anything they can do with the current situation. He's not any happier than anyone else about what happened, but he won't support the motion. Notion to rescind carried 4 -3 with Kelly, Nelson, and Fleetwood opposed. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on July 7 , 2009. ATTES♦T0IIIG lO I 1'���i�i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL `�♦` �...... • �Vc WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON - in`a Brownjg0,A1; :eJncil.lerk 10'/4,111111111111100 ♦ ♦♦ Carl Weimer, Council Chair Special Committee of the Whole, 10/28/2008, Page 12