City Administrator Tom Haglund has said he regrets the
”
frustration
”
and
”
ill feelings
”
generated by news that dozens of employees received
– and continue to receive – performance-based raises as others
have lost their jobs, but he said he has merely continued a
long-standing practice at City Hall and that vague language in
Gilroy’s salary policy makes it unclear whether he actually has the
discretion to block merit raises.
City Administrator Tom Haglund has said he regrets the “frustration” and “ill feelings” generated by news that dozens of employees received – and continue to receive – performance-based raises as others have lost their jobs, but he said he has merely continued a long-standing practice at City Hall and that vague language in Gilroy’s salary policy makes it unclear whether he actually has the discretion to block merit raises.
Gilroy City Council members – some of whom have called the more than $130,000 in City Hall pay hikes since September “preposterous” and “outrageous” – voted 5-2 Monday to hold a closed session evaluation of Haglund next Monday ahead of his regularly scheduled first evaluation in May, and there has even been talk of firing the city boss.
Council members Cat Tucker and Peter Arellano voted against the early review, but the entire
body has indicated it wants to revise Gilroy’s Compensation and Payroll Practices to more explicitly identify Haglund’s authority to deny merit-based raises, which are limited in number and separate from the annual cost of living adjustments nearly all employees receive each year based on union contracts.
As written now, the merit policy states the city administrator “may authorize” the first merit raise of an employee who is not at the top of their pay grade and has received recommendation from their superior. There is no specific mention of the administrator’s authority when it comes to subsequent raises, which officials calculate using a ratings matrix.
“Discretionary raises don’t exist here,” Haglund said. “The very first step appears to have permissive language, but the raises are provided in accordance with the policy – and it is a classic civil service policy – and I can only refer to the way this city has applied that policy in practice for nearly 30 years.”
Semantics or not, the council aims to focus the policy’s language, which may trigger union negotiations, but council members repeatedly stressed this week that they assumed layoffs, mammoth budget cuts and the freezing of unfilled positions that began last fall all implied raises should stop, regardless of how vague the policy may be or how long-standing the review process is.
“In my business, the buck stops with the boss,” Councilman Dion Bracco said. “We thought we had frozen everything, but evidently this didn’t get addressed, so now we’re going to have to address it.”
Bracco – who mentioned that the council may need to hand out its own pink slips – also questioned the matrix that generates an employee’s raise based on his or her review. Since April 2008, only three of the 66 mostly rank-and-file employees who received merit raises got one less than the maximum of 5 percent, according to city figures.
“How can they (nearly) all get 5 percent?” Bracco asked. “No organization this big is going to have all of its employees performing excellent all the time.”
Councilman Bob Dillon has called for wage freezes, “and I mean now,” he said.
“We cannot continue to bleed like this,” Dillon said. “The public is highly angry, and I can’t say I blame them … I personally know people who have taken 20 to 30 percent pay cuts.”
That includes Councilwoman Tucker, who has called for eventual wage reductions. She received a 25-percent pay cut in her job as a skin care consultant like many people in the private industry who do not typically enjoy merit raises while their colleagues lose their jobs, she said.
“No wonder everyone wants to work for the government,” Tucker said. “The system is set up so the employees automatically get a raise if their evaluation meets certain requirements, which is not what I’m used to in the corporate world.”
The city of Morgan Hill still gives out merit-based raises, according to officials there, and five of Gilroy’s employees who received raises were ultimately laid off, which Tucker said she has heard about at the county level, too. As for voting against the special early meeting to evaluate Haglund – a motion brought up by Councilman Craig Gartman – Tucker said any disciplinary action would be premature.
“Yes, we need to talk to (Haglund) so he’s absolutely clear, but do I think any action needs to be taken against him? No,” Tucker said, adding that former City Administrator Jay Baksa caught heat but not lashings for ensuring that city salaries generally outshine nearby municipalities.
While Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips has returned her 5 percent raise of more than $8,000, nobody else has rescinded their pay hikes, and Haglund has not asked anyone to, he said. He added that portraying him as throwing cash around amounted to “deceit,” but he said he would work with the council to implement any changes they seek to make.
Residents may appreciate that, but one who attended Monday night’s meeting dismissed Haglund’s explanation in an e-mail.
“I did not see any contriteness in his demeanor along with the apology,” Ron Kirkish wrote. “His words appeared to be pre-canned and not from the heart.”
Bracco and other council members said after Monday’s meeting they had expected more than a few residents to show up, but they may be able to count on that if things stay the same.
