Everett Salary Commission

EVERETT SALARY REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING March 23, 2017, 4:00 PM Mayor’s Conference Room Those present: Commission Members: Chris Adams Tony Anthonissen John Dickson Angie Sievers Kevin Sylvester Bobby Thompson Art Thomson City Staff: Bob Bolerjack, Executive Director Sharon DeHaan, Labor Relations/Human Resources Director Marcy Hammer, Labor Relations/Human Resources Department Joni Siewert, Labor Relations/Human Resources Department, minutes Christina Wiersma, City Attorney’s Office Guest: Laura Van Slyck, Municipal Court Judge The meeting commenced 4:05 PM. March 16, 2017 Minutes Commission chair Angie Sievers called for a motion to approve the March 16, 2017 minutes. Bobby Thompson so moved, Chris Adams seconded. The motion carried. Guest Speaker, Municipal Court Judge Laura Van Slyck Judge Van Slyck had addressed the Commission during its prior review two years ago. She began her remarks by saying Everett Municipal Court is a big court, dealing with a broad cross section of cases and duties. The court deals with people of all ages, people who suffer from addictions and mental illness, and a spectrum of people whose offenses range from someone not replacing license plate tabs or speeding to serious, violent offenders. She described it as a big slice of the community every day. Something that Judge Van Slyck said was new since the last presentation was time challenges handling in-custody defendants. Incarcerating someone at the Snohomish County Jail costs the City $100 a day and the Court is sensitive to using Everett Police Department resources to transport defendants back and forth. The majority of in-custody cases are therefore handled via fiber optic connection to a room in the jail with which the Judges can for a limited period deal Everett Salary Review Commission 1 March 23, 2017 with in-custody defendants. Recently it has become more difficult to handle all of the required cases in this limited amount of time. Judge Van Slyck’s final comment on general issues facing today’s Judges was the need to have a vision to keep the Court pertinent to changing times and issues. The Court will always serve its court function, but must adapt to issues such as mental illness and untreated chemical dependency that are prevalent in the community. The Court has a mental health alternatives program (MAP) wherein individuals work with the MAP team for at least a year to address the issues that led to their behavior. The goal is to become crime-free, and she reported it really works. She believes in MAP, she has seen people with over 40 convictions before entering MAP maybe slip up and get one more following MAP, but many don’t reoffend. Judge Van Slyck described the Court makeup. Two Judges preside over an average of 90 calendars a month, in addition to other duties. She gave a sample of one of her calendars from last week. People who were seen included someone who failed to pay restitution; a woman with nine non-violent, nuisance offenses who had failed in-treatment drug therapy; and several domestic violence victims who were seeking termination of non-contact orders, sometimes as early as one week after the offender’s arrest. She had three defendants who pleaded guilty, and the responsibility was hers to ensure that the pleas were lawful and the sentences were fair. She related that the Municipal Court has set up its own domestic violence treatment program (DV Moral Reconation Therapy) to allow defendants to participate in treatment even if they can’t afford to pay the high cost of a one-year treatment program at a state-certified agency. She described the Judges as officers responsible for consistently making good decisions that impact peoples’ lives. There are administrative duties as well. Judge Van Slyck said she is a department head responsible for department head duties. She is also on the telephone rotation for police officers to contact to review search warrant requests at all hours. She reported she reviewed 153 after- hours search warrants last year, most coming between 1 and 3 AM, and is on track to review close to 200 this year. The Judges are also responsible for going to the jail on a rotating basis every Sunday, because by court rule cases have to be reviewed no less than 48 hours after arrest. Then there is community participation, such as requests to visit classrooms at Everett Community College, and a Law Day event this year to encourage the next generation interested in going into the law. John Dickson asked Judge Van Slyck about the court calendar. She replied a “calendar” can range from a criminal jury trial lasting two days to a contested hearing lasting one hour. Chris Adams asked if the District Court Judges also get search warrant calls; she replied that yes, Municipal Court Judges are on the same call service as the District Court Judges. Chris Adams asked if there would be a challenge getting qualified Judges if Municipal Court Judge salaries lacked parity with District Court Judge salaries. Judge Van Slyck responded by saying yes, it would be a challenge. Everett already has a residency requirement to be a Municipal Court Judge that limits the pool of qualified candidates. She asserted that the duties of a Municipal Court Judge are clearly on a par with the duties of District Court Judges, and that many of the Everett Salary Review Commission 2 March 23, 2017 same defendants are being handled at the same time by the Everett Division of District Court and Everett Municipal Court. Judge Van Slyck left the meeting 4:20 PM. Salary Discussion Municipal Court Judges Angie Sievers suggested the Commission start with the Judges. Tony Anthonissen asked if Municipal Court Judge is an elected position. Angie Sievers replied yes. Tony Anthonissen responded they solicit funds from outside sources to put themselves on the ballot. There may not be 50 people beating down door, but he would bet there will be 20 for a county this size and it’s enough. Bob Bolerjack commented the positions usually don’t even have two candidates. Tony Anthonissen asked if a limited amount of people are running specifically for the position based on the salary. Chris Adams replied the Commission has the opportunity to attract a qualified candidate, risks not attracting an equivalent candidate. He continued he doesn’t think a candidate would run for the salary opportunity, otherwise he could go to District Court or private practice. Tony Anthonissen countered there are ever-increasing inmates and an ever-increasing calendar, does it make sense to offer the position for less money to get someone motivated by the community? He noted that in the voter pamphlet it doesn’t list salaries, and therefore people run to fulfill a civic duty. Chris Adams made the proposal the Municipal Court Judges stay tied to the salary of District Court Judges. Sharon DeHaan was asked what the recent increases have been, she replied in September 2015 4%, September 2016 2%. This September 2017 4%, as proposed by the State Salary Commission. John Dickson asked when the next salary proposal would be finalized, Sharon DeHaan replied by the end of May. If the Commission decides to go with the figure established by the State, the Judges’ salary will be automatically tied when finalized at the end of May. Tony Anthonissen disagreed with tying to the State. He said the City is different, and even if it is the County seat, to tie to the State does not seem prudent when revenues are not going up. Chris Adams replied he believes District Court level is the minimum, and he would like to offer more to attract someone over the District Court. Chris Adams made the proposal that in regard to Judges the proposed salary for a full-time Municipal Court Judge be equal to District Court Judges, to be adjusted at such time as District Court Judges are. John Dickson seconded the motion. The motion carried, Tony Anthonissen voting no. Chris Adams clarified this was a motion for the salary proposal. Angie Sievers agreed, there will be a draft, but there is another public hearing to amend the proposal if needed. Everett Salary Review Commission 3 March 23, 2017  City Council and Council President Tony Anthonissen said he suggested 1% at the last meeting. Chris Adams asked about cost of living. Tony Anthonissen replied if cost of living is more than revenue projection, it contributes to a budget problem. Bobby Thompson clarified the last cost of living was 1.8%. Chris Adams asked if a lid can be put on the increase. Sharon DeHaan replied that has been done in the past. Angie Sievers observed that in the past 8 years or so they went 5 years without an increase, and the rest they received a couple of percentages. Kevin Sylvester recalled what Tony Anthonissen said about motivation of elected officials, and gave the opinion there is too much assumption about motivation. He said with the economy it’s becoming more difficult to afford housing and transportation. Tony Anthonissen countered the people who fill these positions already have employment, they don’t do it full-time, and most would say it is due to a sense of civic duty. He said compensation should be moot point. Angie Sievers said they do have jobs, and have taken on another civic duty that is almost a full-time job. She believes it is important to compensate them. Tony Anthonissen said he doesn’t have a problem with what Councilmembers make right now; he doesn’t see a reason to increase it. If the Commission could put down a calendar for them to follow it would be one thing, but they don’t have to follow a calendar, they don’t have to show up to meetings. John Dickson asked Sharon DeHaan about the Council salary history, particularly 2010 – 2012, which shows no adjustment. He recalled that was by Councilmembers’ request. Sharon DeHaan replied yes, during that time there was a zero cost of living, one year was even negative. John Dickson asked what about 2014 - 2015? Sharon DeHaan replied the Commission decided to keep the compensation increase at zero. Chris Adams observed when healthcare is added to what they make the Council compensation is very good. He said he was not suggesting zero increase, also recommended the Commission keep the Mayor and Council separate. He asked if a Councilmember would be attending a future meeting. Commission’s Calendar Angie Sievers paused the salary discussion to update the members on calendar conflicts. Almost all the Staff members are not available March 30. Council President Tuohy is agreeable to coming to the April 11 meeting. Angie Sievers asked if the Commission members were comfortable with having no meeting March 30. That makes the next meeting April 11, perhaps with the Public Hearing at 5:00. Christina Wiersma emphasized that the second hearing date has not been published in the event that the commission wanted to have their second public hearing on April 11th. Chris Adams suggested reconvening April 11, including a presentation by Council President Tuohy, and keep April 20 as the public hearing. If they need to continue to discuss business, the meeting can start at 4:00. Otherwise, gather at 5:00 for the public hearing. Everett Salary Review Commission 4 March 23, 2017  Salary Discussion City Council and Council President, continued John Dickson asked how many Councilmembers have health insurance through the City. Marcy Hammer said one or two have opted out. Tony Anthonissen said he did not intend to attempt to change that part of the equation. In looking at compensation, he said having the Council position has benefited Councilmembers’ outside resources, they can take positions with charitable organizations, he is not in favor of paying them more. Angie Sievers pointed out the benefits package is not part of the Commission’s responsibility. John Dickson asked to hear from the other Commission members. Bobby Thompson said that in light of the City’s financial situation he would be in favor of a COLA for both positions, and was open to a cap. Kevin Sylvester and Art Thomson agreed. John Dickson said he would want a cap on the COLA. He favors some sort of increase, it doesn’t have to be COLA. Tony Anthonissen made a motion that next fiscal year a 1% increase be given to the entire City Council. Sharon DeHaan pointed out the Council President makes 30% above the other Councilmembers, Tony Anthonissen clarified base plus 1%. John Dickson seconded the motion for discussion purposes, he said he could live with it for the first year. There was discussion about the economy. Bobby Thompson recalled last week’s presentation about the City’s budget, about positons not being filled. He said 1.0% vs. 1.8% seems rather insignificant in the scheme of the budget. With the actual activities being performed, he was inclined to stay with COLA. Sharon DeHaan pointed out 1.8% was COLA last year, the City doesn’t know what it is this year. As he announced at the beginning of the meeting, Bobby Thompson needed to leave 4:45 PM. Tony Anthonissen spoke for conservatism. Chris Adams said he prefers COLA with a cap, and suggested tabling the motion until April 11 when there is a City Council presentation. John Dickson said it was good discussion on 1%, COLA, and he agrees with a cap on it. The last cycle he didn’t anticipate 4%, 4.5%. He could go 1%, or COLA with a cap. As a Commission member had already left, John Dickson agreed discussion should be tabled about the salary increase until everyone could participate. Chris Adams made a motion to table the current motion until April 11, after the Commission hears from Council. John Dickson seconded the motion. The motion carried, Tony Anthonissen voting no. Angie Sievers called for a motion to close the meeting. Chris Adams so moved. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 4:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Joni Siewert Everett Salary Review Commission 5 March 23, 2017