City council share heated exchanges before reaching a compromise on non-union salary increases

 

[May 06, 2023] 

Monday evening, the Lincoln City Council focused nearly 90 minutes on figuring out how and what to approve in the way of salary increases for non-union city employees. There were several tense moments and heated exchanges before the final vote that gave five percent raises to all department heads except Wes Woodhall who received a seven percent increase, five percent increases for the deputy police chief and three assistant fire chiefs and a flat $2,500 a year to all other full time non-union city employees, all in clerical positions.

The original motion on the agenda was different in that it called for a $4,000 increase for the Administrative Assistant to the City Council and Mayor and a flat $4,183 per year increase to all the other full time non-union staff clerical positions within the city.

The original motion had been built into the annual budget that was approved by unanimous vote on Tuesday, April 25, 2023.

April 17, 2023, Budget Workshop

On Monday, April 17th, the city hosted a budget workshop and there was little discussion about salaries for non-union employees until the last five minutes of the 48 minute-long meeting.

Alderwoman Wanda Lee Rohlfs opened the door for the topic as it related to economic development. She said that the city invests in employees, and it is money that will be reinvested into the community. She said she wanted to stress “we are concerned and do a good job of trying to support our employees financially to the best of our ability.” She said that she had asked Treasurer Chuck Conzo to give her an idea of how much of the budget goes to employees.”

It was then that Alderman Kevin Bateman said that he was not wanting to see the same “black and blue eyed fist fight over what we are paying our employees and if they are worth it.” He had asked the budget committee members Rick Hoefle and Kathy Horn if the budget had in it the adequate amounts to give the increases to non-contractual, non-union salaries. And by nod of head, they had said that it did. He went on to say he was concerned with the hourly rates especially for the landscape waste facility staff who work part time hourly and just above minimum wage. Otherwise, he said he was satisfied with the numbers that were in the budget.

After a few more comments, the motion was made to adjourn the meetings.

Tuesday April 25, 2023, Special Voting Session for the approval of the 2023-2024 budget

The following week on Tuesday, April 25th, the city hosted a special voting session after it held the mandatory public hearing regarding the budget. The voting session lasted eight minutes. At that meeting there were only five aldermen present with the seat formerly held by Rob Jones vacant and Aldermen Rick Hoefle and Tony Zurkammer absent for the evening.

Treasurer Conzo spoke about the budget and offered to respond to any questions.

Alderwoman Rohlfs asked about the resolution for the salary increases and was that considered in the budget. She was told that yes it was, and what was in the budget was adequate to cover what would be presented at the next meeting.
Mayor Tracy Welch said that if the council should amend the resolution then there would need to be a conversation about the impact on the budget and if there would be a need for adjustment.

It was also mentioned that the resolution for increases in salaries would be on the committee of the whole meeting immediately following the special voting session.

When the roll call was taken the budget was approved by unanimous vote by Aldermen Steve Parrott, Sam Downs, Kevin Bateman and Alderwomen Kathy Horn and Wanda Lee Rohlfs.

April 25, 2023, Committee of the Whole meeting

The resolution for the increases in salaries was on the committee of the whole workshop agenda. When Mayor Welch called for discussion on the item, there was none, and the item was placed on the regular agenda for the next voting session which would be Monday, May 1, 2023.

May 1, 2023, Regular voting session of the Lincoln City Council

For this night, the council had eight aldermen present with Robin McClallen and Craig Eimer having been sworn in at the beginning of the night.

The resolution for the increases in salaries for non-union employees was on the agenda.

Alderman Bateman made the motion to approve with Alderman Downs seconding the motion.

Bateman asked each of the department heads and the city clerk if they valued their non-union salaried employees and did those employees deserve the increases that were being proposed. All impacted department heads, Police Chief Joe Meister, Building and Zoning Officer Wes Woodhall, Street Superintendent Walt Landers said their employees were invaluable to their departments and some expressed that it was the clerical and administrative staff that keep the department going in the right direction.

Meister provided some comparable salary information about cities of similar sizes and the pay they provide for their clerical and administrative staff. He said that Lincoln’s staff was underpaid according to the comparison. In addition, he said those cities utilized more staff than Lincoln.

City Clerk Peggy Bateman was asked about the four staff members in her department. She said her staff is wonderful and they put out a lot of fires every day. She said that she was supportive of the increases that are being presented and if the city can’t find it within themselves to give the increases requested, she would study her budget and if it is legal figure out how to give the increases out of other lines in her budget.

Fire Chief Dunovsky said that while his department does not have clerical or administrative staff, he gets a great deal of support from other offices including the street department and the city clerk’s staff.

Bateman said he knew that Ashley Metelko was valuable to the city as the Administrative Assistant to the city.

He said he wanted to make the point that the council should not be responsible for giving increases to the people that they do not work with. The department heads should make the decisions for their departments. Bateman said he wanted to see the resolution passed as presented but in the future look at how the city dictates the salaries of the employees of the individual departments.

He said that just one week ago, he had asked if the amounts were good for the budget, was it going to be presented and passed because he did not want a battle, and he did not want to see last minute changes.

The amounts in the resolution included:

Five percent increases for the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Street Superintendent, three Assistant Fire Chiefs and the Deputy Police Chief.

There was a proposed seven percent increase for the Building and Zoning Officer.

The clerical and administrative staff including the deputy city clerk, two sewer clerks, the Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police, the Police Records Clerk, the Deputy Building and Safety Official, and the Administrative Assistant to the Street Department and the Building and Zoning Department would each receive a flat dollar amount increase of $4,183 per year.

The Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council would receive a flat increase of $4,000 per year.

Mayor Tracy Welch agreed with Bateman that Metelko was a valuable member of the city staff and that she went above and beyond in her job duties. As a grant writer and many times the project manager for things the council wanted accomplished, she was well worth the increase that was being proposed. He went on to say that the non-union staff is underpaid in general, and he would like to see this increase go through. He added that the council had said this was a one-time deal and that staff knew not to expect similar actions in the future. The goal of the flat amount raises was to bring the staff up to a competitive wage and it would not always go this way.

Alderman Rick Hoefle said that he had heard from his constituents and “they are fuming” over these proposed raises. In regard to the flat dollar figure, he said the city had done the same thing last year and had said last year; that it was a one time only scenario and that staff should not expect this to continue. He said but it was continuing, and it was upsetting to the voters.

Hoefle said he would not vote for the current raise structure but would move to amend the motion to a flat five percent across the board with the exception of the building and zone officer, which he would leave at seven percent.

Hoefle said he wished that he could give the city clerk a bonus for the work she has done. Because she is an elected official her salary is defined differently and cannot be changed by the council in a non-election year. If Peggy Bateman chooses to run again, the council can adjust the wage for the position, and then that wage would apply to anyone elected to that office. Hoefle said that he had looked into it and there was no legal way to give the city clerk a bonus. He added that if the wage increases for the staff continue, by the time the clerk position is up for election, Peggy Bateman will likely be the most underpaid person in her department.

Officially, Hoefle made the motion to amend, and it was seconded by Alderman Tony Zurkammer.

Conzo raised his hand to speak. Before being recognized by Welch, the Mayor reviewed the amended motion so that it was made clear. Hoefle had amended to a five percent across the board for all non-union employees with the exception of Wes Woodhall.

Conzo then spoke saying he was in complete agreement with what the department heads and Peggy Bateman had said about the value of the staff.

Hoefle calls for Point of Order against Conzo

Hoefle called for “Point of Order” and said that Conzo was the treasurer not a voting alderman and he shouldn’t be acting and speaking like one. Hoefle said, “we’ve had this before, and it needs to stop.”

Conzo shot back at “you’re just a one-note Johnny on that and if you’re not familiar with that, go …”

Mayor Welch stopped the remarks asking that the members work to be more civil with each other. At that time, the conversation between the two was stopped by a question about the motions by Alderwoman Rohlfs. Welch once again reviewed the two motions made thus far, then said he would like to hear what Treasurer Conzo had to say.

Conzo explained the journey to get to the resolution that was presented. There had been a meeting with Conzo and the department heads, Conzo and the Mayor and finally the Mayor, Conzo and the two alderpersons on the budget committee, Kathy Horn and Hoefle.

Conzo said that the group had originally thought that it would be acceptable to raise Metelko’s salary by $3,000 because she had received a mid-year increase, and all others by $4,000. Conzo said that Hoefle had objected to the smaller raise for metelko and had asked that she be raised $4,000 as well. Conzo had pointed out that if they did so, then Metelko would be making more money than some of the staff that had been with the city several years. Therefore it was Hoefle who came up with increasing the others by $4,183.

Conzo indicated that the percentage raises had also been discussed in the budget committee meetings and that he had explained how percentage raises increased the gap in annual salary between the members of the clerical staff. He added that he had said the staff should be paid what they are worth and Hoefle had responded that if they didn’t like the pay they could go somewhere else.

Conzo concluded that based on the annual report that is filed for public viewing wages are broken down into $25,000 increments starting with those making $25,000 or less. He said that if you look at the eight people that are being impacted by the current discussion, they are all on that low end list, “and they are all female,” Conzo said, “and you can draw your own conclusions from that.”

Bateman spoke again saying that Conzo had hit the issue spot on and had explained in simple English the issue with giving percentage raises. He added that the fact the argument was for raises for females was also worth looking at.

Rohlfs says constituents feel they are not being heard

During his comments, Bateman had spoken loudly and Rohlfs, noted that saying she might not have the loudest voice, but she wasn’t sure it was a loud voice that was needed in order to convince the council of what it should do.

Rohlfs said that each alderman had an opinion, but they also had to consider the opinions of the constituents. She added that the statistics presented were clear, but not necessarily an equal comparative. She noted as an example that the city of Canton pays their staff much more than Lincoln, but their bottom-line budget for the year is $90,000,000 compared to Lincoln’s $21,000,000. She said that was not comparable as far as what each city could afford to pay staff.

Rohlfs said that constituents were telling her that they resented being valued at election day but then forgotten. She said that the city is not listening to the people when it should be. She added that yes, every staff member in question now was an excellent employee that deserved more, but the city has to consider what it can afford.

She also added that she still has a problem with the way the budget is drawn up. She said, as she has in the past, that the council used to be fully involved in the budget, and that the drafting process began sixty days at least prior to the passing of a budget.

Rohlfs continued on for a few minutes, speaking about how the process used to go, and saying that it was not right that the city wait until the last minute to put together a budget that doesn’t involve the full council. She said that yes indeed she valued the staff, but she also values the residents of Lincoln and that has to be a part of the decision process. She noted that the staff were now looking at $4,000 raise last year and again this year, and surely not many employees get that. In addition, she said that the city had approved additional paid holidays this year and had worked with staff to change office hours to make it easier for them. She said she probably could say more, but she was going to stop.

Hoefle had raised his hand to speak, but when called on, said he had changed his mind. He said he wasn’t happy but he would take up his issues with individuals. He added that the discussion on this matter had gone on long enough and it was time to stop.

Downs supports raises

Sam Downs spoke and said that while listening to the discussions he had done some of his own calculations and on average the staff was making $17.50 an hour, not the $20 that had been mentioned earlier. He said that there is a lot of competition for jobs in town, and that these same women could go to Walmart and make close to what they are making from the city. He added that the women in question were good workers, valued by the city, some had worked for the city for years, and he did not want to lose them. He said he would vote in favor of the raise.

Bateman said that he thought the council was not looking at what the budget is this year. He said that the overall expenditure side of the budget, the city is going to be spending $500,000 less than last year, and that the revenues are going to go up due to gaming and other things. He said that it didn’t make sense that the council was bickering over a difference of $19,000 between the dollar-amount raises and the percentage races. He said that was nominal.

Steve Parrott spoke for the first time, saying he was torn on the topic. He said that he felt that a five percent increase was “awesome” and that if someone would say that to him he would say “sign me up.”

Parrott tells the council to stop being gender specific

Parrott then said, “I would like to challenge this council not to bring up employees by their sex. It happens all the time. The girls. The girls. The girls. Stop referring to their gender and trying to make people feel bad about this being a gender issue. It’s not. So stop it. It’s not right.”

Parrott went on to say that the money being discussed was not a large amount, but the issue was the perception of the community. How constituents feel about the situations and what they say when they reach out to aldermen or attend to council meetings. He also said he agreed with Bateman on the idea that the department heads should determine what increases their employees receive. He said the council should give the department heads a dollar amount, and the heads should determine how that amount is utilized.

As the discussions continue. Bateman continued to speak about the gap increasing if the city continues to go the way of percentage increases. He said that flat dollar increases were definitely a better way to go. He then said he could and would amend his motion to give every single position in the resolution a flat $2,500 raise if that is what it takes to get the resolution passed. Welch noted that there was already one amendment on the floor that had to be voted upon. Bateman said if the mayor called for the vote on Hoeffel’s amended motion and it passed, then his motion would be moot.

Welch said that if the city doesn’t go along with what has been proposed, he has spoken to the department heads who said they would give a portion of their salaries to get adequate increases for their staff. Welch said he would do the same “because it is the right thing to do.”

Welch suggests negotiated contracts for non-union employees

Welch noted that the union employees’ salaries are negotiated and agreed upon for a period of time. He suggested that perhaps that was another solution. Negotiate with the non-union employees and devise a three-year contract that would tell the employee what the financial rewards would be. He said it would alleviate this hassle.

Hoefle said he thought that was a great idea and he would get behind doing negotiations with the non-union employees.

Zurkammer said he also thought it was a good idea. He said it wasn’t going to solve the immediate problem, but it could solve future problems. He said he had listened to all the comments and agreed with several of them. He agreed especially that the city should not be waiting until “the eleventh hour” to build a budget.

Alderman Craig Eimer spoke saying that he wandered if all these staff had the same title. He said his big question was if everyone achieved the same wage, could it or would it stay that way or would it get lopsided again in future years.

Bateman said that if the department heads put together their own budgets and came to the committee, then the committee could take it line by line and ask the questions. If salaries seemed high, then the department heads could explain how they plan to utilize the money, and the council could say yes or no. He added that what he thought was getting lost in all the discussion is that the original amounts in the original resolution were in the budget as approved on April 25th and that the city was still coming in $500,000 under last year’s budget.

Rohlfs expresses concerns for future budgets

Rohlfs had said that there was a concern though about the future. She said she had talked to business owners who said if things didn’t improve they would have to shut their doors. She said that would have an impact on revenues for the city. If those same people move from the city that too will impact city revenues. She said all these possibilities needed to be considered not just for a year when the city managed to reduce expenditures but in future years when it may see reduced revenues.

Parrott said that there were so many factors to consider with any of these raises. He said that first, if you look at other jobs within the community, for example first year teachers. In one school they make one amount and in another they make a different amount, and this is common. He said it is always based on what the community can afford, what the school can afford.

Eimer was called to speak and said that he has seen closures that have impacted the city, the bottle factory, the college, and others. And yes those things are worrisome. He added that he fully realized the value of every city employee and he wanted to make that clear. He said it was difficult to understand why the city doesn’t hesitate to give the union employees their raises but there is an issue with giving the non-union employees the same consideration. He said he would like to see all nine staff members in question make about the same money so there would be less bickering over this topic.

Conzo spoke again saying that he wanted to point out that the original resolution for the raises of the nine individuals was agreed upon by the budget committee unanimously at the point that the committee was creating the new budget. He added that he chairs the committee by appointment and that it is not required that he do so. Anyone who wishes to chair the committee may ask to do of the mayor.

Bateman and Hoefle exchange heated words

Bateman said that as he sat listening to the discussion around the room, what he was hearing was the eight members of the council was telling the department heads, “that your opinion that you just gave us means absolutely nothing to us….”

Hoefle broke in saying to Welch “Stop him! This is way out of line. If you can’t get control I’m leaving.”

Welch asked, “did he specifically call you out?”

Hoelfe responded, “He’s pretty much calling all of us out.”

Bateman responded “I said eight people, I’m calling all of us out.”

Welch asked Bateman to be respectful and Bateman said okay, then went on “the department heads gave their opinion. We’re supposed to take that opinion to heart, and again, if we were talking about a very large budget number, I could see it.”

Welch calls the discussion to a halt

When Bateman paused, Welch said he was going to call a halt to the discussion. He said it had gone on long enough. He said if he was not mistaken, it appeared that the council would be interested in giving the department heads greater responsibility in giving the raises.

Parrott said he felt that would be good for the future, but that is not what would help in this current year.

Welch wondered if the council would want to table the item and come back with a better perspective for making the decision.

Rohlfs said she would like to seek information from other communities. Do they give department heads authority over the raises, and if not why.

Rohlfs said that she felt the council had been accused of not respecting the department heads and she wanted to make it clear that these people had value as did the employees that work in their departments.

Then there came a question about being able to afford the amounts proposed. Bateman said again that the amount of the original resolution had already been approved in the budget. Rohlfs asked if that was the case, then why was this brought up and who brought it up. Bateman said he did not know. Rohlfs held up a piece of paper and asked if Bateman was the one who had produced the document. Bateman said he was. It was a spreadsheet showing that the difference between the flat dollar amount raises and the percentage raises was less than a tenth of a percent overall. The sheet he produced had nothing to do with disputing an amount for the budget that had already been approved.

Welch pounds the gavel and Eimer makes a motion to table

As the discussion between Rohlfs and Bateman became heated, Welch pounded the gavel and told everyone to calm down. Eimer made a motion to table the vote. Welch asked for Hoblit to join him in a sidebar discussion. When they were finished, Welch explained that they had been discussing procedural issues on tabling the vote. He then said that he felt that in general the council did not wish to table the vote. At some point there had been a comment made that perhaps Eimer was out of order to participate as a new member with no history on the topic. Welch offered clarity on the matter saying that there is nothing “by law that prevents new aldermen and women from participating in the conversation.” He went on to say that it has been past practice that they do not, and that they abstain from votes. He said however, there has never been a conversation about whether they could or should make motions.

Eimer said if they abstain from the votes, then there are six seated aldermen making the decision for eight, and he didn’t feel that was proper either.

Bateman seeks to make an amendment to the amendment

Bateman wanted to amend the amendment that was on the floor. Welch thought that the amended had to be voted upon first. Bateman said once a vote is taken it can’t be amended. Hoblit was called upon for clarification.

Hoblit said the council needed to “dot all the ‘i’s’ and cross their ‘t’s’ so, he would recommend that the council vote on the amendment by Hoefle. If that passes, then Bateman can move to amend the amendment and another vote could take place. The second amendment would overrule the first amendment and then the original motion would be voted upon as amended.

Welch called for the vote on the amendment. Zurkammer asked for clarification on the vote.

Welch said the amendment was to give all department heads five percent with the exception of Wes Woodhall would still receive seven percent, and then all the non-union salaries positions in the resolution would be changed to a flat five percent increase across the board. This would NOT apply to the part-time hourly employees in the resolution.

Welch called for the vote:

Zurkammer - yes
McClallen - abstain
Parrott – yes
Downs - no
Rohlfs - yes
Hoefle - yes
Eimer - abstain
Bateman – no

The motion passed 4-2-2

Bateman moves to amend the amendment

Bateman then amended the original motion to $2,500 across the board for everyone single salaried person, including the department heads. Downs seconded the motion.

Conzo said that if the council approves the second amendment, the gap between the salaried union employees and the non-union department heads would close up somewhat. Parrott said that then by attempting to shrink the gap between employees they were decreasing the gap between union employees and department heads.

There was discussion about Wes Woodhall’s increase, which was not even close to what was originally proposed. Welch asked Woodhall if he was willing to take a lesser increase to assure a fair increase for his staff and he said yes he was.

Dunovsky said that with the union negotiated increases at four percent, and the raises for the department heads being about two percent, there was a probability that the highest paid union employees on the police and fire departments would be making more than the department heads.

Welch said that he was disappointed in the way the night was going.

Bateman wonders what happened in a week

Bateman said in closing that he would like to understand what had happened in the last week. He said that one week prior the budget had been discussed and everyone had agreed by unanimous vote that what was in the budget was justifiable and that the employees deserved.

Walt Landers suggested the amendment be changed to four percent or $2,500 whichever was greater.

Hoefle offers a different compromise

Hoefle said, “let me talk. Let’s get down to brass taxes here. I’m asking you to change your amendment so it may pass. Go back to five percent for the department heads and seven percent for Wes and then $2,500 for the non-union employees.”

Bateman agreed to change his amendment as Hoefle had asked.

Welch called for the vote:

Downs - yes
Rohlfs - yes
Hoefle - yes
Eimer - abstain
Bateman - yes
Zurkammer - yes
McClallen - abstain
Parrott – yes

The position passed 6-0-2.

There was then a final vote for the original resolution “as amended” which passed with the same votes.

How it all ended

The final outcome was that the department heads including the Police, Fire, and Street and Alley would receive a five percent increase. The Assistant Police Chief and three assistant fire chiefs would receive a five percent increase. Wes Woodhall, the Building and Zoning Officer will still receive the seven percent increase. The clerical staff including the staff of the city clerk’s office, the building and zoning staff, and the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and Council will receive flat raises of $2,500 for the year, and the part time hourly staff will receive the wages set forth in the original resolution.

The final comments on the topic included a verbal confirmation that next year, the council will take a very different approach to the budget and the administration of rate increases for non-union staff.

[Nila Smith]

Post Script:  Lincoln Daily News received word Friday night that Mayor Tracy Welch has officially vetoed the section of the resolution pertaining to the non-union salaries.