COLUMBUS, Ind. — Bartholomew County Sheriff Sheriff Matt Myers has decided to weigh in on what he describes as the “contentious county council salary debate.”
Myers is referring to a proposal to raise the salaries of 218 Bartholomew County employees up to the average or middle-ground pay of those doing the same jobs in other counties. The proposal, which came from a study conducted by consultant Kent Irwin, failed in the county council on April 12, stalling on a tie.
Potential salary increases will not impact Myers, who cannot seek reelection this year due to term limits. Nor will it boost the wages of merit deputies compensated on a matrix pay scale, which offers several levels of pay based on various factors such as performance, time spent on the job, education and training.
Myers put out a press release late last week stating that three council members made statements during the debate that the sheriff said did not represent the full truth.
The statement mentioned several council members, including Greg Duke, who retired from the sheriff’s department in August 2019 and is now a school resource officer in Brown County.
Last fall, Duke was chosen by GOP precinct committee members to fill out the term of Laura DeDomenic, who resigned after moving out of her council district. Duke is facing a GOP challenge from Leah Beyer in the primary for County Council District 2.
Duke’s statement that adopting Irwin’s salary survey amounted to shirking council responsibility, according to Myers, is not based on facts, data or even reason.
As council president, Duke was aware that county Auditor Pia O’Conner had instructed each department head to go through Irwin’s data and correct errors before being asked to apply their best judgement, the sheriff said.
“The work was already done by all of our department heads and each recommendation was spelled out in an easy-to- understand format,” Myers said. “Greg Duke made each department head feel as if they could not be trusted and had flawed judgement. “
Myers urged Duke to consider that department heads know their people and work better than the council.
The sheriff also said 42-year council member Evelyn Pence, as well as Duke, both stated they would disregard Irwin’s salary study because they both voted against commissioning Irwin last September.
“Democracy says that the majority rules,” Myers said. “Once the vote was taken to initiate the wage survey, it is anti-democratic to say I don’t agree and therefore chose to vote against the data.”
After meeting with other county officials Monday, Duke issued the following prepared response on Tuesday:
“It seems to me that Mr. Myers’ opinions are ill-informed and mistaken in his assertions. The council desires fair and adequate compensation for all employees. Even now, meetings and interviews are being conducted with elected officials and department heads, identifying problems. Through careful study and deliberation, I hope and believe we can achieve successful policy.”
Myers also said council member Bill Lentz stated repeatedly that he wanted to hear from the department heads before he could make a decision to vote yes on any motion.
“The fact was every department head combed through the data diligently and submitted their feedback on time back to the council,” Myers said. “It was in (the council’s) pre-read material and was either not read or considered given (Lentz’s) comments.”
In response, Lentz said he’s not sure why the sheriff has decided to speak out on the matter at this time, and does not believe his allegations are accurate.
However, the council member reiterated earlier statements that it’s important for him to talk with each department head informally “over a cup of coffee” to ensure they approve of giving one employee a pay hike, while not raising a similar worker’s pay.
Lentz said he’s heard from eight department heads this week, and, according to the councilman, all told him they still see errors or have concerns about the salary study.
“I’m all for giving employee raises, but I just want to make sure we do it right, Lentz said.
In his statement, Myers said if there are questions, these should be addressed prior to the council’s next meeting.
“The council members knew when they asked for the survey that there was a problem. I am simply asking them to put in the time required to understand the data and state
clearly their position based on facts, data and reason. I am also asking the council to at least acknowledge the work that has been done and trust that the department heads did this work honorably.”
Myers said he has learned many things serving as sheriff for nearly eight years. “One of the largest lessons is to always be data based and remove emotion and politics from key decisions. I again applaud the council for initiating the salary survey but ask them to complete whatever work is required to make an informed decision.”
FULL STATEMENT FROM SHERIFF MATT MYERS: (AS SUBMITTED)
As Sheriff and a concerned citizen, I wanted to offer my thoughts on the recent debate among County Council members with regard to the wage survey. At the last Council meeting, there was a heated debate on the topic, which I feel is healthy, but some of the comments made did not seem grounded in facts or data.
I actually applaud the Council for initiating the wage survey of the 12 counties that do the same work as Bartholomew County. The data from the survey had a mixed impact for all county employees. For over half of the county employees, the wage survey demonstrated that we are currently fairly compensated compared to their peers in other similar counties doing similar work. It also pointed out that some of our employees were underpaid and well below the market median compared to their peers and should be considered for adjustment.
Each department head was asked to review the entire list and identify any mistakes that were made from the survey. Each department head corrected the minor errors and then exercised their best judgement by looking at each job description for relevance and making recommendations back to the Council. Each department head faithfully completed this work and sent their information on time for the Council so they could to review before the public meeting.
During the discussion phase three statements were made that were not based on facts or data.
1. Bill Lentz stated that he wanted to hear from the department heads before he could make a decision to vote yes on any motion. The fact was every department head combed
through the data diligently and submitted their feedback on time back to the council. It
was in their pre-read material and was either not read or considered given his comments.
2. Greg Duke stated that he did not want to adopt this survey and felt he was shirking his
responsibility as a council member and wanted to use his judgement. This is also not
based on facts, data or even reason. As President, he was well aware that the County
Auditor, Pia O’Conner, had instructed each Department Head to go through all of the
departmental data, correct any errors and then apply their best judgement. The work was
already done by all of our department heads and each recommendation was spelled out in
an easy to understand format that the County Auditor had consolidated. Completing a
wage survey is common business practice to understand the market. It alone does not
give the answer and has to be coupled with good judgement and intimate understanding
of the individuals represented in the survey. Greg Duke made each department head feel as if they could not be trusted and had flawed judgement. Many of these department
heads are elected officials and pour their heart and soul into their work and their teams. It
is important to note that no department heads were on the list to be considered for an
increase. The employees on the list are the backbone of county government. We invite
Greg to apply whatever wisdom and judgement he has, but ask him to consider that the
department heads know the people and the work much better than the Council. Greg was
pushed several times by both Mark and Jorge on what additional data or work would be
required to gain his support. He was unable to answer that basic question as Council
President.
3. Evelyn Pence and Greg Duke both stated that they did not vote for the wage survey in the first place and therefore disregard the information gained. I clearly understand the fact
that few votes are unanimous. I do however understand that democracy says that the
majority rule. Once the vote was taken to initiate the wage survey it is anti-democratic to
now say I don’t agree and therefore chose to vote against the data.
In the end, only six members attended the meeting with Matt Miller absent. Greg, Bill and
Evelyn all voted no, while Mark Gorbett, Jorge Morales and Scott Bonnell voted to move
forward. Given this tie vote the motion to move forward failed and is again postponed. We are hopeful that the council members that are in opposition would take the time to talk with the Department Heads to understand the rigor and the hours that were spent on the data already. If there are questions on our judgement as Department Heads these should be addressed prior to the next meeting. The Council members knew when they asked for the survey that there was a problem. I am simply asking them to put in the time required to understand the data and state clearly their position based on facts, data and reason. I am also asking the Council to at least acknowledge the work that has been done and trust that the Department Heads did this work honorably.
I have learned many things as your Sheriff over the last 7.5 years. One of the largest lessons is to always be data based and remove emotion and politics from key decisions. I again applaud the Council for initiating the salary survey but ask them to complete whatever work is required to make an informed decision.
