 When it came to salary increases for nonunion, nonelected employees,
finance chair Chuck Ruben recommended that the committee take the
question to the full board for their input.During the board of
whole, saying it was for the purpose of opening up the discussion,
Ruben made a motion for raises of 2 percent for nonunion staff, not
appointed or elected.
He quickly clarified: "There's no money in the budget for raises.
But we always bring it up to the full board to do the raises."
When it came to department budgets, Ruben said: "Last year we
gave 3 percent in the salary line and then took 2 percent of their
whole line item away from them (departments)." Some departments had
some wiggle room so that some employees did get some raise, he said.
He observed that the cost of living is now 3 percent. "So,
they're just treading water if we give 3 percent."
Each department head prepares a detailed budget that includes a
lump sum for raises. The board reviews each department budget.
Usually an increase for staff wages in the amount of the consumer
price index is put into those budgets and approved.
The individual employee raises are actually determined by
department heads. It is left to each department head to award
employees with raises. That gives the department head the ability to
act as a boss, rewarding an employee who works harder with a bigger
raise, or lesser to an employee who does not produce as well as
others.
Ruben said that in the finance committee they are on the third
draft of the budget.
"Right now it is using up the $253,000 fund balance with $45,000
left over. Out of that $45,000 we have to come up with $86,000 for
bonds and any pay raises," he said.
The amount needed to provide these pay raises would be
approximately $40,000.
He later clarified how the funding would be found for the bonds.
The work is yet to be completed but would involve rearranging and
redirecting revenues and expenses in and out of funds so that they
qualify for their purposes, some of which involve the enterprise
zone and regional planning commission.
Ruben told board members that the only way to increase the bottom
line now is to cut the officeholders' budgets by a percentage.
"But it's real hard to approve a raise for them; give it in one
line item and then take it away in another," he said. "The excesses
that were in their budget have been used up."
Andy Anderson was first to comment.
"I understand what Mr. Ruben is saying, but the only thing about
it is that we don't seem to have any trouble giving the
officeholders a raise, even though that's considerably less,"
Anderson said.
"I understand that all we can do is give them (department head
budgets) 'X' amount of dollars and they can do what they want to
with it," he added.
Anderson proposed that there ought to be a different way to do
it. He said Caterpillar did away with raises and went to 2 percent
increases per year for employees. He suggested doing the same thing
by adding a line item to the county's general budget.
"The officeholder isn't going to get that money; the employee
is," he said.
Ruben responded that when the money is given for raises, it is
usually 3 percent. "They're (the officeholders) pretty well giving
that to their employees," he said.
Ruben explained that for management purposes, the officeholder
gets to make the decision who gets what. When 3 percent is put into
the budgets, most employees will get 3 percent, but at the
discretion of the officeholder, one employee might get 4 percent and
another might get 2 percent. It gives the officeholder the ability
to manage their employees.
Ruben used an example to show how and why it was that most
employees didn't get raises last year.
"We gave them (in office budgets) 3 percent of their salary line
item, which was $10,000; then took 2 percent of their budget away,
which was $10,000; and then expected the officeholder to give them
(employees) a raise."
[to top of second column] |
Some employees did get raises last year when a few of the
officeholders made use of unused insurance amounts that were
budgeted.
Ruben said he tells the department heads to budget insurance for
every employee in case an employee who is not taking insurance would
leave and the one coming in wants insurance, then it is in the
budget.
"Sometimes new employees don't take the insurance and then there
is room for raises," he explained.
"What I'm saying is that if we give a raise this year, we've got
to find the dollars and put a real raise there, not say we are
giving them a raise and then make cuts. I don't know where those
dollars are coming from. I've looked at everything," Ruben said.
Anderson said, "I understand." He then observed that some of
these employees have not had raises in two years, while
officeholders have gotten their raises. "I've got issues with that,"
he said.
Board member Kevin Bateman asked "if, instead of putting raises
in the officeholder's budget, a line item could be created to put
cost-of-living bonuses in."
He added: "I know we still have to fund it, but then we could
control it being paid out on a yearly or biyearly basis."
Ruben didn't mind that suggestion but observed that officeholders
like to, and do give their employees raises when the money is there.
"It's the coming up with the money," he said.
Pat O'Neill said: "We cannot continue to sit here and talk all
these expenses and then vote raise after raise." He wanted to seek
some other way of compensating employees, such as by profit-sharing.
Bill Martin said: "I would love to give everyone a 3 percent
raise, but here we are borrowing money ($1 million in alternate
revenue bonds to cover major court expenses in 2013) and we're
talking raises. It's not good fiscal policy. We're going to end up
looking like the state of Illinois. I think we just have to put the
brakes on this and later just go forward."
Terry Carlton suggested taking all the budgeted insurance and
having the board manage the unused insurance funds for the benefit
of all the employees.
Administrative assistant Pam Meagher was asked for figures. The
total number of employees is about 150, with 110-120 of those taking
insurance.
Ruben said a good figure to use from those numbers would be 10
employees not taking insurance, which would amount to about $55,000
a year to budget.
The estimated amount for 3 percent raises for the employees being
discussed is approximately $40,000.
Carlton said he would favor moving insurance fund management to
the county board.
In conclusion, Ruben made an additional motion to amend his
original recommendation to a 0 percent raise.
"I want some options out there. We've got to do something (for
these employees)," he said.
The straw vote at the board of whole indicated that the motion
for 0 percent raises failed and 2 percent raises passed.
A new motion to refer back to committee won favor of the board.
The finance committee will meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday at
the Logan County Safety Complex to continue work on the next budget.
[LDN] |
