The Salary Commission was created by charter amendment in 1988 and charged with the task of setting salaries for Council and recommending administrative salaries. Since 1995 the Commission, the Council, and the public have been deadlocked regarding administrative raises, prompting
The Salary Commission was created by charter amendment in 1988 and charged with the task of setting salaries for Council and recommending administrative salaries. Since 1995 the Commission, the Council, and the public have been deadlocked regarding administrative raises, prompting the current chairman, Gene Bullock, to suggest abolishing the commission as useless because its recommendations have been repeatedly rejected (The Garden Island, 11/4/00). A review of less-publicized aspects of the commission’s brief history may help explain the deadlock.
The first administrative raise generated in the era of the Salary Commission, in 1991, was the largest dollar increase in history.
Using the mayor’s salary as the reference point, the raise amounted to $11,469.
In relation to the interval since the last raise, this was also the largest percentage increase in history.
Chairman Mark Hubbard referred to the 1991 raise in the course of proposing new raises in 1994, noting that the administration had received only one raise in six years. The full picture is this: the mayor received a two-part raise in 1988 totaling $6,084 and the $11,469 raise in 1991, for a total increase since 7/1/88 of $17,443, or 33%.
In 1994 (two years after ‘Iniki—do you remember ‘Iniki and its aftermath?) the Salary Commission proposed a 4-stage 19.25% increase in administrative salaries to be enacted in a 21-2 year period. In connection with the proposed raises Mr. Hubbard was quoted as saying, “The commission thought that at this time and with this economy that the county could afford it.” (Kaua’i Times, 10/22/94). Since the first of the four projected raises took effect in 1995 the issue of administrative raises has remained deadlocked.
It is collective matter in conflict, not my intention to accuse or blame the persons or actions of the Salary Commission. Having studied the some detail, I believe that much of the confusion, and frustration associated with the commission’s brief history can be traced to the fact that the same charter amendment which created the Salary Commission also eliminated the one objective benchmark previously used to determine administrative pay scales (salaries of department heads must equal the top civil service salary) and the entire process has run amok or floundered, depending on your viewpoint, ever since.
Horace Stoessel, Kapa’a
