UPDATED: NorCo Exec Lists 17 Awarded Raises Without Council

Executive John Brown has provided Northampton County Council with a list of 17 employees who have received raised from him without their approval. They were granted under a personnel policy deemed unlawful by Council Solicitor Phil Lauer. Altogether, about 54 people have received suspect wages.

Though Brown has provided some information, he apparently is only willing to discuss it in Executive Session.

One of these employees, a purported friend of Assistant Director of Administration Cathy Allen, was hired as a temp and then given a $4,243 raise with no justification. Was this raise as a result of what she knows or who she knows?

This is one of the questions that council will try to answer tonight.

Updated 11 am: Council Solicitor Phil Lauer Reports on Meeting With Administration

Council Members/Linda:

Council President Ferraro has requested that I address this email to you, to summarize what occurred during a meeting among the Executive, his Solicitor, Council-member Geissinger and myself on Thursday, May 14, 2015. The meeting was accomplished at the direction of Council, to address issues relating to the propriety of pay increases unilaterally accomplished by the Executive, as well as the possibility of an amicable resolution of the current increases, and a plan for addressing similar issues in the future.

There remains a difference of opinion between Council and the Executive regarding the Executive's ability to adjust pay levels for higher ranking members of his administration. His position is that, given his obligation to effectively deal with a large number of personnel, the responsibilities and duties of whom change over time, some flexibility is required. Further, to the extent that his personnel costs remain within the overall budgeted amounts, there would appear to be no adverse effect on the budget, or the overall operation of the county government. This is particularly true to the extent that any of the affected personnel are in the exempt status, since the career service regulations do not specifically cover such individuals. The executive further explained that there were reasonable and valid reasons for each of the increases, and he provided us with certain examples. Finally, with regard to the Deputy Director of Administration position, which has received some considerable attention, he is of the opinion that this is an exempt position. In that regard, he provided us with a list of exempt positions prepared by HR, and that list includes the Deputy Director of Administration.

I explained, as I have explained previously to Council, that the Home Rule Charter gives Council the power to establish salaries and wages of all elected officials, officers and employees, and provides for a "pay plan for all positions". With regard to career service personnel, the charter provides a merit personnel system which applies to all career service employees, and explicitly defines how and when increases are to occur. The Career Service Regulations provide for a pay schedule with designated pay grades and steps, and provides for revisions of the pay scale which are to be submitted to Council. The regulations provide that increases in pay are to occur in accordance with the pay plan. Perhaps most important, nowhere is there a provision granting to the Executive the authority to make case-by-case departures from the otherwise applicable regulations. Further, with regard to the office of Deputy Director of Administration, the job description for this position, most recently revised in January 2012, specifically provides that the position is a career service position.

While the respective positions of the Executive and Council are clear, there is, as has been stated by virtually everyone who has examined the issue, some degree of uncertainty as to precisely where responsibility lies for pay adjustments in individual cases. A recent decision by a Northampton County Judge regarding the authority of the District Attorney to make similar adjustments facially appears to support the Executive's position. A careful reading of that opinion does not, in my view, support that position, but the similarities, together with HR's view that at least one of the positions was exempt, have created some confusion.

Our discussion went on for some time. At the conclusion of that meeting there was at least some agreement. Specifically:

1. To the extent that it is relevant, it appears that all parties were actually acting in good faith. The Executive was making adjustments to the compensation for positions whose responsibilities had changed, and he believed, based on the foregoing and the advice of his Solicitor, that he had the right to do so. Accordingly, no contact was made with Council regarding those adjustments. Council's objections to the adjustments are legitimate, and based on a sincere desire to comply with, and enforce, the applicable provisions of the Charter, Code and other relevant law.

2. The Executive agreed to provide to Council a listing of all pay increases and step advancements among county employees for 2014 and 2015, and apologized for the delay in providing that information, which is apparently not a simple process. We were assured that it would be forthcoming promptly. In fact, the County Solicitor provided me with the relevant documentation yesterday, and I have attached a copy of his letter to me, as well as listings of all pay increases and step advancements for 2014 and 2015. It was agreed that Council would be requested to keep at least the identity of the individuals listed on these documents confidential.

3. With regard to any pay increases or step advancements accomplished to date, there were discussions regarding whether, and in what way, remedial action should be taken. To the extent that the Charter or Regulations were violated, there is justification for some such action. There is concern, however, about the legality and fairness of now revoking pay advances, in some cases in effect for almost a year, on which the recipient and family have undoubtedly now come to rely. Given what was at least a misunderstanding of the effect of the applicable regulations, the personal effects which would result from a suspension of the increases, and the real possibility of litigation in response to any such suspensions, the consensus was that no action, in the form of either a suspension of the increase or claim for reimbursement of same, should be taken.

4. Finally, in an effort to generate a clearer understanding of these issues, and prevent a recurrence of any inappropriate future actions with regard to compensation, all agreed that the recently dormant Personnel Commission should be evaluated, reconstituted, and encouraged to take a close look at a number of matters. With regard to its membership, there was some discussion of ensuring that one representative of both the Executive and Counsel should be members of the Commission. Further, the issues which were the subject of the stipulated disposition of the litigation between the Executive and Council in October, 2009, would be submitted to the Personnel Commission. Finally, the Commission, with input from Council and the Executive where relevant, would examine more closely the pay plan to determine whether changes are appropriate.

To the extent that there are questions or concerns regarding the recent meeting, I will be happy to address them, and will respond, as quickly as possible, to any communications by Council.

Phil Lauer

Updated 1:30 pm: 2014/15 Payhikes Authorized by Executive Withour Council Approval:

2014-2015 Pay Increases