Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern about the <br />little guy whose "disposable" income is much less than those in <br />higher levels, and he asked if the Administrator envisioned that <br />he is going to continue to come back and readdress management <br />level positions. <br />Administrator Chandler reviewed how positions are set up in <br />relationship to each other, and noted that from a personnel <br />standpoint, it is the law of supply and demand. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was confident we have addressed the <br />relationship of positions in our top management, but knew that we <br />have not done that in the lower level positions. <br />Administrator Chandler noted that the 1988 plan looked at <br />all positions in relation to one another, but from his perspec- <br />tive, he did not feel that plan addressed this as comprehensively <br />as it should have. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed it was said at the time that <br />it was not a "market-driven" plan, but he personally felt that <br />had to be a factor, and Administrator Chandler agreed that must <br />be considered as a factor. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did believe what the Administrator has <br />presented is a good analysis; he was only concerned about the top <br />guys getting all the gravy. <br />Administrator Chandler commented that he is not getting any <br />gravy out of it, and he did look at it objectively. He continued <br />to stress that the time to look at top management is at the time <br />of annual adjustment. <br />MAY 2 2 1990 <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the Pay <br />Progression Plan presented by the Administrator with <br />the caveat that he continue to look at the mid range <br />and lower range individuals. <br />Nor b� <br />25 FAGr 15 d <br />