Commission splits, grants COLA hike for elected officials

By Buck Collier, Special Correspondent
Posted 1/26/22

HERMANN — A last-minute phone call Thursday morning to a Gasconade County commissioner at home recuperating from COVID resulting in a tie-breaking vote giving the county’s elected …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Commission splits, grants COLA hike for elected officials

Posted

HERMANN — A last-minute phone call Thursday morning to a Gasconade County commissioner at home recuperating from COVID resulting in a tie-breaking vote giving the county’s elected officials their first cost of living adjustment (COLA).

The 4-percent COLA was approved when Southern District Associate Commissioner Jerry Lairmore, R-Owensville, joined Presiding Commissioner Larry Miskel, R-Hermann, in approving the salary adjustment aimed at cushioning the blow of inflation.

Northern District Associate Commissioner Jim Holland, R-Hermann, voted against the COLA, citing recent pay raises received by elected officials as a result of reaching a specific threshold regarding the county’s total assessed value of property and by bringing elected officials salaries in line with amounts allowed by state law.

The COLA was authorized in November by the county’s Salary Commission, which is comprised of all elected officials. That panel said a pay adjustment should be granted if the county’s operating budget could afford the pay boost. At that time, Miskel cautioned that if a COLA were to be granted, it would not be large enough to meet the current 6-plus percent rate of inflation.

At Thursday’s Commission session, Holland argued that with the increase of $2,000 that became effective for elected officials beginning a term in 2021, the increase allowed by state law, the Commission should wait until the 2023 budget is crafted to consider a COLA. The $2,000 boost will be in effect for the officeholders elected this fall and beginning a new term in 2023.

“We’ve got one raise this year,” Holland said. “I don’t support another one. We’ll take a look at it next year,” he said.

But pointing to the recommendation of the Salary Commission, Miskel said the COLA should be granted.

“I’m in favor of it,” he said.

Speaking to two officeholders attending the session — Collector Shawn Schlottach and Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Deeds Pam Gruenke — the presiding commissioner said, “This (job) is not my career. This is your career.”

He repeated a point he made at an earlier session: During his nearly 10 years in office, rank-and-file county government employees have received a pay boost of some amount while the elected officials have not.

“We have the opportunity this time” to grant an increase, Miskel said.

That opportunity comes as a result of a strong showing last year by the county’s General Revenue Fund sales tax. Indeed, the solid financial footing made for an unusually smooth budget process. As noted by the administrators, this is the first year in several years in which the various county government departments weren’t sent back to rework their budget requests.

As Thursday’s session was nearing its end, it was clear that Miskel and Holland remained apart on the COLA issue.

“We’re at an impasse now,” said County Clerk Lesa Lietzow, the county’s chief budget officer who was urging the Commission to complete its work on the budget in order to meet the required time for public inspection of the spending plan prior to formal adoption by the Commission later this month. All significant matters regarding the budget — except for the COLA issue — had been resolved.

That’s when Miskel called Lairmore, who was at home recuperating from COVID. The associate commissioner was sidelined a couple weeks ago, missing two Commission sessions and a budget work session.

Lairmore, speaking to those gathered in the Commission Chamber, said, “My thoughts are…if there was a way to, if funds are available” the COLA should be approved. “If the money wasn’t there, it would be different,” he added.

“I think we should follow through” with the Salary Commission recommendation, he said. Lairmore made the motion to approve the 4-percent cost of living adjustment.

In other matters, Miskel was pressed by Schlottach to explain why Road Department employees will receive a 5-percent pay raise this year while county employees working in the courthouse will receive a 4-percent raise. Miskel said the higher raise recognizes what the called the “expertise” of the Road Department personnel.

That explanation didn’t set well with Schlottach.“I don’t agree, but that’s your position (to decide the amount), not mine,” she said.

Meanwhile, Gruenke was concerned that even with a pay raise setting the starting pay for courthouse employees at $14 an hour wouldn’t help a longtime employee in her office. “I don’t agree with this proposal to raise my 6- to 7-year employee up to what the starting wage is going to be,” the circuit clerk said.

Miskel asked Gruenke what she thought would be fair for the employee.

“I’m recommending $14.50 an hour, because I’ve heard a (county government) office outside the courthouse refer to our employees as ‘secretaries’ and that is not what they do,” she said. “They do the same work as an elected official,” she continued, “except some things, such as (working on) this budget.”

Gruenke said having a longtime staffer earning the same amount a new hire would earn amounted to a “slap in the face.”

After saying the Commission would “definitely look at” Gruenke’s recommendation, Miskel checked with Leitzow, who confirmed the projected budget could accommodate a 50-cent-an-hour increase for Gruenke’s employee.