Minutes - 19840904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2~C 4 (5) personal relationships in performing the jab; (6I physical. demands, and (7) working conditions Dr. Hayman noted that the pay plan was not chanced. Chair t9illhoit noted that the state salary plan had been adopted several years ago and questioned why we are not now or. the state system. Hayman explained that the state system is off from where it used to - be with a constant percent. The system is the same as the state but the County did not hold to that percent and has longer ranges while most counties and cities do not have longer ranges -number of steps. Hayman read the letter of introduction included in the report and referred to Exhibit I which contains a summary of the annual cost~of the pay plan. t~7hitehead noted that the Housing and Community Development positions were studied in house and not included in Hayman's report. Commissioner I•iarshall auestioned how the salary paid to the Sheriff and the P,egister of Deeds, set by the Board, fits in when loolcing at the salaries in those departments as wall as in the base for other department heads. Hayman indicated that an annual report is available from the Insti- tute of Government which gives salary data for elected officials and other officials in the County. The salary paid to the Sheriff and the P.egister of Deeds is a political decision and should be separated from the setting of the salaries for other employees. He does not use this as a case far other employees. Commissioner P•larshall requested repeatedly an explanation of how the market data was balanced with the desk audit and other data. Commissioner Plarshall indicated that salary data is available from other sources an the Department on Aging salaries. EIayman noted that in determining salaries the maximum and minimum salaries being paid in the labor market area were considered and a recommenda- tion determined from that information. The simple average is not as significant as locking at the job and the mobility of the people and what is being paid in other jurisdictions. He explained the comparative salary data chart for each position and how the information was obtained and weighted. fie indicated that the personal interviews and questionnaires that each employee completed were used primarily to put that position in a job classification. The information received from other sources was used in setting the salary levels. Commissioner whitted questioned the spread of the comparables for the ~ Deputy Sheriff I and Deputy Sheriff II. Hayman explained Deputy Sheriff xI is five percent higher than Deputy Sheriff I. Durham County does not have tvao levels of Deputy Sheriff positions; Orange County uses the beputy Sheriff TI position as a reward for seniority and leadership. Commissioner ;Marshall questioned v~hy the Economic Development Director is above the fiecreation Director and why the Public P7orl;s Director would be at a lower grade since there are no comparables for two of these positions. Hayman indicated that the Economic Development Director's position was a new position and not yet established as a .program. P•Iost counties are - only getting a Public darks Director so there were no comparables. - Commissioner :~'hitted questioned the grouping in each salary grace.