6.9. SR 10-25-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e County in its clerical wages but below the School and is consistent with other communities. The second wage concern I have heard related to wages for department heads and specifically how close in wages the sergeant's are getting to the Police Chief. On the opposite side of this issue may be some feelings that the pay of some department heads is too high. If the City Council desires to increase the wage of the Police Chief based on growth in his department, it should also increase the wages of the Finance Director and Street/Park Superintendent and keep these employees within their relative position. Accordingly, if the Police Chief salary is increased, the Street/Park Superintendent should also receive an increase as well as the Finance Director remaining above these two positions. I have no problems if the City Council desires for these three employees to move closer to myself in wages and to create a gap between these three employees and the rest of the department heads. In fact, this may be very appropriate based on the significant growth in their departments and the increased responsibilities. Another way to help develop a separation in pay for department heads is to limit the increase for some, but this will not address the Police Chief and sergeants pay issue. Clearly, a wage plan and wage adjustments is an art and not a science. There is no exact right or wrong for the Council to follow in providing wage adjustments. The Council may want to consider making adjustments in the pay plan over a two or more year period if it believes that inequities exist. The Council can give a 2 to 3% increase to all non department heads (plus steps), a I to 2% increase for some department heads and a much higher 4 to 6% increase for other department heads. While the City is bound by the comparable worth law, there certainly is some flexibility and individual changes that the Council can undertake.