Some Randolph County employees will not be receiving a pay increase any time soon. Randolph County commissioners on Thursday unanimously denied salary budget adjustment requests from three elected officials. The requests for retroactive employee pay increases after the beginning of the budget year stemmed from a few county workers receiving salary increases that were more than the 2.5 percent across-the-board raise given to all county employees.
In August, commissioners met with elected officials during a special meeting that was conducted in executive session to discuss the raises that were given to employees for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Commission President Mike Taylor explained that during the special meeting, officials talked about the positives and negatives of giving retroactive pay increases that would date back to July 1. As a result of the meeting, commissioners approved a request for proposal for a wage and compensation study to be drafted.
Before the wage and compensation study request for proposal could be finished, last week commissioners were presented with letters from County Clerk Brenda Wiseman, Circuit Clerk Phil Riggleman and Sheriff Jack Roy. Each of their letters asked for budget adjustments to provide each employee in their offices with around $1,500 raises. Typically, budget adjustments are their own item on the agenda; however, because of the "significance" of the requests, commissioners considered the elected officials salary budget revisions as a separate item, Taylor explained.
Taylor said Thursday that he thinks before any action is taken on budget adjustments for wage increases, the commission needs to wait for the results of the study. He added that the wage and compensation study will, hopefully, give elected officials a better understanding of the duties of each county position in order to create job descriptions and establish starting salaries for the positions. The results of the wage and compensation study will also help commissioners and other elected officials determine future raises when funding is available, Taylor said.
Wiseman requested an additional $3,681 be placed in her budget in order to increase the salary for one of her employees. The requested increase would raise the employee's salary to $21,000. Wiseman also asked for $4,412.71 to cover additional raises for each employee in her office.
"Well, the elected officials all feel that their employees deserve it too, but we can't just give our employees a raise like you did," Wiseman said in a letter sent to commissioners last week. "What is fair about that? The only way I see this being resolved is for you to put enough money into all of our budgets to be able to give our employees the same $1,518.40 that you gave your employee."
In Riggleman's letter to the commission, he said he supports the "long overdue" wage and compensation study because wage disparities have been an "ongoing issue" during his 15 years in office.
"Each year when I come before you for my budget approval, I am told we must work together and that we need to work on developing a higher level of trust," Riggleman wrote. "In fact, many of the current issues in wage disparity are due to previous and current commissioners' mistrust of the elected officials and their desire to micro-manage each office and dictate wage dispersal."
Riggleman stated that he understands that county employees should be compensated for increased job duties and responsibilities.
"What I disagree and am troubled with is the body which sets the budget increases and controls the purse strings feel that they are entitled to disregard their own policy and stand with defiantly crossed arms and obstinate ears when questioned," Riggleman wrote. "Trust is hard to gain but easily lost. A 2.5 percent increase is just that, a 2.5 percent increase, and should have been honored by all.
"In the future, I truly hope a level of trust can be established between the commission and the other elected officials. However, the disparity of increases and your blatant disregard of your mandated limit do not lead to this end."
Riggleman asked to receive an additional $4,403 to cover pay increases for employees in his office.
Sheriff Jack Roy has been an advocate for a wage and compensation study for the last five years. He stated in his letter to the commission that he thinks the study will "give all elected officials a good overview of what they should be expecting from their employees and how they can be fairly compensated for their work."
"I understand that there is disparity throughout the county workforce in wages. However, this decision has only exacerbated this problem and I feel that I was misled or misinformed during the budget meeting earlier this year concerning the 2.5 percent pay increase for all employees.
"I feel that the only ethical, moral and fair solution to this problem is to increase all employees to the amount of a $1,518.40 across-the-board increase that would be equal to the amount received by the commissioner's employee."
Roy's request, which included law enforcement and office employees, totaled $11,034.24.
Roy told The Inter-Mountain that the county's excess funds can also be attributed to the frugal spending of elected officials and department heads. He explained that the efforts of elected officials to obtain grants, reimbursements and generally trying to find ways to save money enables thousands of dollars to be placed back into the county's general fund each year.
"The problem has been recognized that there is discrepancy in the starting salaries of the different offices throughout the county," Taylor said. "If we were to approve these requests, as they are submitted today, the biggest concern that I have is that we would create a bigger disparity in a problem that already exists."
Commissioner Chris See said that the wage and compensation study is needed in order create job descriptions and "make it fair for all the employees."
"We have very fine staff in this county, we have excellent, excellent staff," Commissioner Julia Elbon said. "One of the reasons that we have such good staff is that the salaries reflect to some extent those salaries in the public, but they also have the benefit of retirement and health insurance. It is the county commission's intent to review the results of the wage and comp study, which will establish qualifications, perhaps, but definitely duty."
According to salary information obtained by The Inter-Mountain through the Freedom of Information Act, some total employee wages for similar jobs are in excess of $30,000, while others are just more than $18,000. In addition to each salary, Randolph County pays 100 percent of its employees health insurance premiums. A family plan costs $999 each month and single insurance plans are $482. Each county employee receives a base salary, service pay - $60 for each year of service - and a one-time pay increase of $250. Years of service pay for some employees is as much as $1,800. County employees also receive 14 paid holidays each year; and, any additional holidays declared by the governor are also included.
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, two employees in the county clerk's office received $1,500 extra for their work with the election and additional duties they performed when the office was short-staffed after a resignation.
In the meeting, Roy disagreed with Taylor's statement that the requested budget revisions would increase disparity in county employee wages. He explained that his, Wiseman and Riggleman's requests would have given across the board pay raises to their employees, instead of percentage increases. The percentage raises enable those who already make more than other county employees to receive larger pay increases, Roy told commissioners.
"What we requested wouldn't increase any disparity, what has happened has created more disparity," Roy said.
Wiseman said she agreed with Roy's statements and thinks that the commission gave raises above the 2.5 percent in "secret."
"We were told two and a half percent for every county employee and that's not what was done," Wiseman said.
Copyright The Inter-Mountain, all rights reserved.
