In the FY2012 budget which was adopted by the Council in May the County spends approximately 39 million dollars on salaries for our employees. This item is the major expense associated with running our county government and providing essential services to our community. Our salary plan and compensation policy deserve careful attention and oversight by elected officials. For several years now a pay for performance policy has been used to determine the raises for our employees. I believe that we need to change the way we are implementing our pay for performance policy and reduce the discretion of managers in determining raise amounts because our current approach is causing problems with our salary plan.
In March 2010 several problems with the current salary plan were presented to Council as part of an overall market survey where the salaries of 95 positions in our local government were compared to the corresponding salaries offered in other communities and in private industry. The market survey was performed by Fox Lawson and Associates, an independent consulting firm hired by the County. A number of conclusions in this study are troubling. Typical organizations have a ratio of 4 employees to every job title in the salary plan, with high performing organizations having a ratio that is closer to 10 to 1. In our salary plan the ratio is 2.6 to 1 and the consultants recommended that Los Alamos consolidate the number of distinct job titles in its salary plan. In addition it was reported that there are 22 job positions in our plan where the midpoint of the salary range is between 11% and 20% higher than the market average. Keeping in mind that 95 job positions were considered as part of the market survey, it is disturbing that the consultants identified 9 job positions in our salary plan where our salary midpoint is more than 20% greater than the market value. In my view our current pay for performance policy is exacerbating the problems identified in the market survey. The consultants recommended that we downgrade those positions in our salary plan that are misaligned with the market average. In County government when we see a problem we should fix it. The FY2012 budget and its associated salary plan do not address the problems identified last year by Fox Lawson and Associates.
As part of my review of the County's FY2012 budget prior to its adoption by Council I did my own analysis of the amount that we pay for salaries in the various departments by dividing the total salary amount for each County organization by the total number of FTEs in that organization. I limited my analysis to those departments and divisions that do not have a significant number of temporary or casual employees. When it was proposed the FY2012 budget called for a 3% increase in the salary pool and I expected to see the salary cost per FTE increase by about 3% relative to the FY2011 budget for most organizations in the County government. This turned out not to be the case, with a few organizations getting an average salary increase that is considerably greater than 3%. The salary cost per FTE for the Capital Projects and Facilities department with 37 employees increased by about 5.3% from 2011 to 2012. The Office of Management and Budget, a division of the Administrative Service Department containing 12.75 FTEs, increased by 4.8%. The Transit division of the Public Work Department with 32 FTEs increased by 4.7% and the Administration division of the Administrative Services Department experienced a 5.7% increase. Unfair disparities in raise amounts seem to exist for the various organizations within County government, suggesting that some employees are getting relatively large raises at the expense of other employees. For example, the Public Works department overall has an average salary increase of 0.6% as opposed to the Transit division which has a 4.7% increase. I am not comfortable this kind of disparity and I feel that we need to modify our pay for performance policy, taking away some of the discretion of managers in determining raise amounts. In my opinion it would be better to give all our employees the same raise amount rather than continuing with a pay for performance policy which I contend is not being applied properly.
The County has approximately 680 employees. The overwhelming majority of these individuals do not appear before the Council and are not in the public spotlight yet what they do is important for our community. Let's show all our employees that we appreciate their efforts by treating them fairly and removing the large raise disparity that currently exists from our pay for performance policy. Let's show our citizens that we are serious about promoting a more efficient and cost effective government by making necessary changes in our salary plan to correct misaligned and overpaid job positions. The County's FY2012 budget does not adequately address either of these issues and in this regard it represents a business-as-usual approach to government. I voted against the FY2012 budget because I believe that a business-as-usual approach is not good for our employees and our community.
