Bartholomew County Council members are continuing to question a salary study evaluating more than 400 county employees’ pay after county department heads asked for changes.
The council discussed the study at a work session Tuesday night. Work sessions are for discussions only, not for votes.
Initially presented Feb. 28 by Kent Irwin of Waggoner, Irwin and Sheele, a Muncie-based management and research consulting firm, the study was discussed for well over an hour.
A few months ago, it was determined the county would need slightly more than $404,000 to raise salaries up to the mid-range levels found in neighboring or comparable Indiana counties, Bartholomew County Auditor Pia O’Connor said. The county has set aside about $1 million for that purpose.
But during the February presentation, council member Matt Miller, who was later accused by some county officials of being aggressive toward the company representative, accused Irwin of being several months late in completing the study. Miller’s claim was disputed by the actual contract language which was read aloud by O’Connor.
At a council meeting last month, Bartholomew Superior Court II Judge Jon Rohde brought up a discrepancy he found regarding the court. While the judge said there was only one mistake and the rest of the study was correct, some council members asked that all department heads determine if there were more mistakes.
During Monday’s council work session, each council was given a binder that contained a one-inch stack of papers containing a variety of concerns from department heads. They include emails from office holders and administrators that allege some additional mistakes in the study.
For example, the courts disagreed that the study didn’t list their office managers in a higher paying category than the court staff they supervise. One judge said a staff member takes on additional duties beyond that person’s job description, so a salary comparison with others having the same job title in another county shouldn’t be applicable.
But the most common concern expressed by the department heads was that the county cannot compete with the private sector in wages.
In the prosecutor’s office, former office administrator Brenda Mijares wrote the department’s salaries for bailiffs are higher than legal assistants and caseworkers. Due to a number of concerns, the prosecutor’s office is losing a number of professional workers, she said. That includes Mijares herself, who recently accepted a position with Cummins Inc.
Meanwhile, Bartholomew County Coroner Clayton Nolting, who also works as a city police officer, says the responsibilities of his office have grown to the extent that he believes his part-time coroner duties should be made a full-time elective position.
The Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Department asked for four separate job classification changes, as well as the additional of four new job titles to the study. And in another area of contention, some council members expressed their displeasure that both the Information Technology and Surveyor’s departments had been allowed to exempt themselves from the study.
Miller and council member Greg Duke questioned the authenticity of the study as well as the ability of the Muncie firm to fix the errors.
Other council members who seemed apprehensive about giving out raises prior to the late summer budget talks were Bill Lentz, Evelyn Pence and Scott Bonnell.
But in responding to the criticism, council member Mark Gorbett reminded his peers there was no errors with the main information the council was seeking.
“We’re not saying the data is wrong,” Gorbett said. “It’s the midpoint position of the same job in other counties.”
In many cases, department heads were simply asking that certain positions be reclassified in a different category from where they were in the salary study. In a few instances, department heads came straight out and said they did not want to lose their ability to determine raises themselves.
Council member Jorge Morales emphasized the goal of the salary study was to provide a step that leads to a data-driven system for wages that “takes the politics out of it.” He also said much of the criticism expressed against the wage study this week appeared to be based on assumptions, not facts.
Prior to his retirement from Cummins, Morales worked in personnel management and worked to establish compensation of executives, union members and exempt employees.
Morales said he had wanted Irwin or a representative to be invited to attend the last two council meetings to address concerns. However, he was overruled both times on the matter, Morales said.
Although there was no vote taken or consensus reached, most of the council seemed to be in general agreement about what steps should next be taken.
Each department head will be visited by one or two members of the council to discuss in a closed-door setting if there are additional concerns the department head has with the salary study recommendations.
After the full council receives an update from those conversations, all problems determined to have a valid basis will be sent back to Waggoner, Irwin and Sheele. The Muncie consulting fire will be asked to either fix them or explain why they are sticking by their original recommendations.
The idea of having the company that created the wage study make necessary changes was also supported by county Treasurer Barb Hackman and county commissioner Larry Kleinhenz.
“The only thing that concerns me is that government moves too slow,” Gorbett said. “We have been talking about this since the budget talks late last summer. By the time we move, (the wage study) will be stale information.”
A formal vote on how the county will proceed is expected at the next council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. on Tuesday.
