Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-16 adj 00022 November 16, 1994 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 16, 1994, at 5:00 P.M., Rooms 5/6, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from November 2, 1994. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 5:08 P.M.), Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., William W. Finley, George C. Landrith, III, Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore, Mrs. Karen L. Powell and Mrs. Sharon Wood. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Acting Superintendent, Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Human Resources, Ms. Juliet Jennings and Deputy Director of Human Resources, Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger. Mr. William W. Finley called the School Board to order. Agenda Item No. 2a. Discussion: Salary and compensation guidance for classified employees. Mr. Brandenburger said the purpose of this discussion is to provide information on the status of the County's classified compensation and health insurance plans and obtain budget guidance from the boards. Each year Human Resources conducts a comprehensive salary survey of comparable jurisdictions and private sector businesses. The survey compares the midpoint of salary ranges for similar positions. Approximately 77 classified positions are sur- veyed. Mr. Brandenburger said survey data indicates that County salaries are approximately 4.24 percent below the market. This survey is a comparison of salary ranges, not individual salaries of personnel. It is recommended that a 2.5 percent scale increase be used to develop the FY 1995-96 budget. Mr. Martin asked how the County's salaries manage to be 4.24 percent below market when last year the salaries were only 2.4 percent behind, a 2.5 percent scale adjustment was given to the employees and most other localities increased their salaries by the same amount. Mr. Brandenburger said last year when the survey was conducted, it did not include data from the business sector. The survey represents 28 businesses in the area. This year 17 of those businesses reported data on positions comparable to County positions. The data indicated that some of the County's lower level position are below the market. Also, some jurisdictions have reclassified certain positions which further escalates the deferential. Mr. M. Marshall asked what employers are being used for the market data. Mr. Brandenburger provided a handout (copy on file) of the organizations included in the market salary survey. He explained that the survey is conducted using a cluster group, local public sector and local private sector. He added that the survey data is comprehensive. Mr. M. Marshall asked if Human Resources has information on the cost of living index for the other localities. Mr. Brandenburger said that is not something they usually inquire for the survey. Mr. M. Marshall said that information should factor into whether the County is competitive. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle is second in CPI (consumer price index) to Northern Virginia. Dr. Hastings said several years ago the state did a comprehensive demographic analysis and looked at various localities to determine which ones were most similar and could be grouped together. The state used such factors as whether the locality was rural, urban, suburban, the CPI, school systems, economic data, etc. The result of that analysis is the cluster group shown on the handout. Mrs. Powell did not feel that every job should be upgraded because some were below market. She said that if the salary for a particular position was below market, that salary should be increased, but not everyone be given an across-the-board increase. Mr. Brandenburger said the survey does not specify a particular job. It outlines the essence of the position. The survey also clusters positions into job families, i.e., clerical (office assistants, administrative secretary, executive secretary). Not all positions are surveyed because many jobs in an organization are unique to that organization. Mrs. Powell asked if Mr. Brandenburger knew of any organizations that provide increases across-the-board like the County. Mr. Brandenburger replied that there may be some, but he did not know which ones. Mrs. Powell asked if he knew whether the process for increasing salaries in the cluster groups is 000222 November 16, 1994 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) similar to the County's process. Mr~ Brandenburger said that is not provided in the survey information. Mr. Martin said a 2.5 percent adjustment does not need a lot of justifi- cation other than being a cost-of-living increase. Mr. F. Marshall said the driving force in private business is profit and supply and demand. Mr. Finley asked if bonuses, merit pay and vesting are considered in the survey. Mr. Brandenburger said the survey does not encompass any supplemental compensation an organization provides its employees. The survey primarily compares baseline pay structure. Mrs. Thomas asked why not request the 4.24 percent increase if that is how'much the salaries'~really need to be adjusted. Dr. Hastings said the recommendation was based on available revenues and this is the beginning of the budget process. Staff felt it was important for the Boards to concur on the guidelines since compensation is a significant factor. If there is some available money as the budget process unfolds, staff can then come back and ask for the additional money. Mr. Perkins said he thinks staff needs to look at supply and demand. Staff also needs to look at base salaries, the performance of the individuals and the total compensation package. Supply and demand reflects whether the County is competitive not just baseline salaries. If the County has a diffi- culty hiring people then something is wrong, but if a large number of appli- cants apply for a position, then there is not a problem. Mr. Martin asked why vesting is not considered since it becomes part of the salary. Mr. Brandenburger said the salary comparison does not have anything to do with an individual in the organization or the money that individual is personally receiving or where that individual is on the salary scale. The survey looks solely at the position as a job classification. How a person moves on the salary scale, vesting, bonuses, etc., is a separate process. This survey is an effort to make sure the job structure and value of the job match the market. .~ Mr. F. Marshall said he thinks the 2.5 percent is a good point to start building the budget and he is willing to support the request. Mrs. Powell said if the salary of a position is not competitive that salary needs to be increased, not the entire scale. She agrees that some of the jobs are underpaid and need to be increased in salary, but there also are job positions that are overpaid. Mr. Bowerman then suggested that staff look at each organization in the cluster group, take the total salaries paid by each jurisdiction for its general government employees, classified employees and school employees, divide the total salary by the number of employees to determine the actual amount of money paid per capita by that jurisdiction. Mr. M. Marshall said he thinks it is difficult to measure the accuracy of the County's pay scale because of bonuses. He wonders if giVing the employees a one-time lump sum bonus would reveal the flaws in the pay scale, Mr. Brandenburger said the question then is how people would move on the scale because if every supplemental pay was paid as a lump sum and not vested, an individual would always remain on the same step and never move up. Mrs. Gallion asked what percentage of employees received the four percent merit pay. Mr. Brandenburger said the vast majority of the employees receive a four percent bonus. At this time it was the consensus of the both Boards that staff use 2.5 percent as the classified scale increase for initial budget planning purposes. Item No, 2b. Discussion: School legislative issues. Mr. Tucker said on November 2, 1994, the Board of Supervisors met with the State legislators and at that meeting Senator Robb mentioned two bills he would like some support from Albemarle County. Both of the bills impact the school system. Dr. Juliet Jennings, Director of Human Resources, provided information on the cost of conducting a criminal history search of Virginia records using fingerprints. Virginia searches are handled through the Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE). Currently the Police Department does a criminal history check based solely on name free-of-charge to the County. The legisla- tion would require the searches be done using fingerprint data. The Virginia fingerprint search would cost $13 per person/per search. The fee fora nation-wide criminal history search based on fingerprints and conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is $24 per person/per search. For $37, a combined Virginia and FBI search could be completed. The Virginia search takes approximately two months; the FBI search usually takes from three to six months. She then provided a summary of the total cost if this had been done on employees hired during FY 1993-94. November 16, 1994 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 00022~ ' (Page 3)' Mr. Martin said he thinks this is asking too much for an applicant to pay without being offered a position. Mr. M. Marshall said he does not understand what problem would be solved from doing this. Mr. Bowerman said one of the Senator's concerns was that there could be significant legal expense if, for example, a Sex offender was hired in a classroom and the County had not diligently looked at that persons background in doing a records check. The fingerprinting provides a concise record. Mr. M. Marshall said in retrospect the County could unknowingly hire a sex offender who had never been caught and convicted in which case there would be no fingerprints on file and there would still be the same problem. He is concerned about subjecting applicants to fingerprinting checks based on their desire foremployment with the County. Dr. Hastings said for more than eight years the County has done the criminal investigations through the Police Department. She has always been concerned that one digit of a Social Security number could be entered wrong and the data would come back with no record. She is concerned about the six to eight months wait for fingerprinting information to come back. The individual would have been employed for that length of time. She feels that if the County is'going to request this information, then it needs to get it quickly. For example, this past summer the school system hired 102 teachers. Mr. F. Marshall said he thinks fingerprinting might scare someone away who knew he had a record and would be discovered. Dr. Hastings agreed that fingerprinting might guard that more closely than the name check. There have been a few name checks that showed a criminal record and the individual was subsequently fired. Mr. Martin felt the six month wait should not be an issue. Mr. M. Marshall said he feels there is a presumption of guilt implied. The presumption of guilt is that when an individual applies for a position, the County wants their fingerprints because the individual might be lying about having a criminal record. Mr. Martin said he felts'the same when the County first proposed drug testing. The individual is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence without any reason to suspect. He thinks fingerprinting is a lot less intrusive than giving up bodily fluids. Mrs. Humphris asked what the liability issue would be if the County hired a criminal unknowingly. Mrs. Thomas asked who would pay for the fingerprinting. Mr. Davis said the legislation that is currently law requires the employee to pay for the records check. Mr. M. Marshall said he is concerned about the state being in possession of positive identification of a lot of innocent people. He does not know if it is necessary for the state to have this information when it does not need it, and he is concerned about how that information will be used. School Board members then decided that it would discuss this issue further at one of its future meetings. Dr. Hastings then discussed ot~er legislation proposed by Senator Robb which was for two-way communication in all classrooms. Mr. L. A. Reaser, Acting Assistant Superintendent, said there is currently a $260,000 request in the Capital Improvements Program for telephone and public address systems in the classrooms to do what Senator Robb wants done. All renovations and new schools since 1990 have communication systems in the classrooms. Mr. Martin said he thinks this is something that should be done but he does not necessarily think it should be required by legislation. School Board members also decided to discuss the issue of two-way communication further at one of its future meetings. Item No. 2c. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters. Item No. 2d. Executive Session: Property Matters. Item No. 2e. Certify Executive Session. These items were removed from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 6:19 P.M., with no further business to come before the boards, the meeting was adjourned~_~ Chairman