|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Margaret Hanlon-Gradie, Central Labor Council of Contra Costa County, AFL-CIO
Michael Moore, Member, Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Stuart McCullough, Contra Costa Human Services Alliance Margaret Eychner, Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association Rick Wise, East Bay Leadership Council Facilitator: Stephen L. Weir, Contra Costa County Administrator's Office |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. | Call to Order and Introductions | ||||||||||
Chairman Wise called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. | |||||||||||
2. | Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). | ||||||||||
No members of the public requested to speak during the public comment period. | |||||||||||
3. | RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the June 11, 2015 Ad Hoc Committee on BOS Compensation meeting. | ||||||||||
The minutes were approved with corrections to typographical errors misstating the "year" on pages 7 and 9, from "1015" to "2015". | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
4. | REVIEW final draft of report, recommendations, and presentation materials, and provide direction to staff on any changes and next steps. | ||||||||||
The Committee reviewed the report and made several typographical, grammatical, and formatting corrections. Staff alerted the Committee to a formula error in the prior meeting's percentile analysis affecting the San Mateo County total compensation figure and the calculation of the average for all counties. The percentile calculations and Committee recommendations were not affected. She also reformatted Attachment A to better correspond to Attachment B. Steve pointed out that when the Committee previously decided to remove the City and County of San Francisco from the peer comparison, the result was that the range of data within the array became compressed, leaving little difference in the compensation values between the 37.5th and 50th percentiles. More discussion ensued over the minimum number to counties that should, in any future study, be compared when looking at any percentile more discrete than quartiles. Staff suggested that a future committee could consider adding another criterion such as the number of cities within a county, in order to expand the array of peer counties. The challenge is that there are not many other California counties that are close in population and budget to Contra Costa. Margaret Eychner mentioned that one of the County labor business agents complained about the Committee removing the City and County of San Francisco from the peer comparison. Margaret thought that the report provided a clear explanation of why San Francisco was removed. Staff observed that the Committee kept San Francisco in the analysis until the final calculations clearly showed it to be an outlier in compensation as well as in its governance structure. Steve commented that aside from being in the Bay Area and having a comparable total population, there was no other basis for comparison between the governing boards of the City and County of San Francisco and Contra Costa County. Steve reviewed the report and each of the attachments with the Committee, pointing out changes made from the previous draft. Rick suggested that the Recommendations should be strengthened and made to sound less like suggestions, and the Committee concurred. Steve provided some background to the news representatives present, to provide the context for the Committee's discussion. The Committee reviewed the draft Powerpoint presentation materials and requested a few minor changes. Staff clarified the difference between making future salary reductions, if any, by ordinance rather than by voluntary waiver. The Committee discussed the concept of "shared sacrifice" in the context of past labor negotiations. Steve proposed to present the report to the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Committee and asked the Committee members to be present at the July 7 meeting. Staff said she would try to reserve seats for the Committee. The Committee approved the report with the changes discussed at the meeting but reserved an opportunity to give final approval or make changes at the June 25th meeting. Stuart indicated that he would not be able to attend the Committee's June 25th meeting because he will be attending a recognition ceremony for his organization, which was named among the top 100 companies in the Bay Area. Stuart indicated that he was comfortable with the discussion about the report today. The Committee voted to approve the report and presentation with the amendments as discussed. The report will be listed for one final review at the June 25th meeting. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
5. | The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 25, 2015. | ||||||||||
6. | Adjourn | ||||||||||
Chairman Wise adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. | |||||||||||
|