9/19/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this is consistent with the approval of the Board last fiscal year when we started out with the salary program for the secretaries. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that her position on this has nothing to do with individuals and how deserving they are, but she has a major timing problem with the proposal as related to its general effect on morale. She felt the Attorney's office should be looked upon the same way as every other department in this building, and she would have a hard time approving this when she knows we have people in the Planning Department and Public Works and Utilities, who have killed themselves over the Comprehensive Plan, etc. She would just like to see all of this start in the county at the same time, and if Administrator Chandler is coming up with a plan for this the first of the year, she thinks there is a possibility of going ahead at that time when it would be a lot more fair to all our very deserving employees. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to allow the Administrator to move ahead with the proposed 5% cost -of -living increase with the idea that we will readdress the employees of the County Attorney's office when the Administrator comes up with his overall plan for all County employees. Commissioner Bird commented that going straight across-the- board just serves to widen the gap between the higher salaried .1 employees and the lower paid, but he guessed the steps mentioned by the Administrator would help take care of that inequity. Administrator Chandler agreed. He noted that the problem is not being able to come back with the overall plan but to come up with a way that we can implement it equitably. Commissioner Scurlock noted that when you start to talk about salary range, you try to reach a point where employees have h 59