Home Oakley Oakley Salary Range and Benefit Increase Was Not Appropriate

Oakley Salary Range and Benefit Increase Was Not Appropriate

by ECT

Oakley

The City of Oakley did something this week that was both irresponsible and inappropriate by increasing salary ranges of its staff, increasing benefits, and suspending furloughs based on the state of the economy improving.

I write this piece not as EastCountyToday, but as a concerned citizen of Oakley where our city council asked not a single legitimate question about this item.

First, Mr. Montgomery’s staff report was very incomplete which I will get to in a second, but more importantly, they are comparing salaries the City of Oakley to Antioch, Benecia, Brentwood, Hercules, Pleasant Hill, and Pittsburg to justify the range increases when that is the last thing they should be doing.

The reality is that no two cities are alike and Oakley is its own special case just like every other city in America. More importantly, Oakley has the lowest tax base of those surveyed so of course they are going to have the lowest paid staff.

More importantly, by increasing the salary ranges, they make the claim they are more “competitive”. Okay, to what? Further bloating city salaries? It shouldn’t matter if salaries are more competitive because the only thing that should be looked at is if employees have actually left the city to peruse other employment elsewhere. If staff started to leave, then maybe look at it, not before based off the rumor mill of staff leaving for better pay checks.

Missing from the staff report was where was the actual comparison of these cities in relationship to Oakley within the staff report on Item 5.1?  That was never provided which leads me into the incompleteness of this staff report which essentially is a backdoor pay raise for employees.

First, city staff will see an increase of pay based off furloughs ending—while its technically not a raise, their hours immediate increase which raises their pay. It would probably be more prudent to ensure Oakley is open full-time with no adjusted hours and see how that goes prior to adjusting work schedules and providing salary range increases.

Second, based off the council’s approval, it put at least seven employees below the minimum which meant an automatic pay raise to bring them up to minimum pay. So why did this happen? It was due to a single line in the staff report of Item 5.1 which stated:

“It is important to note that these are ranges only and no adjustments to any employees salary is made by this action, unless the employee’s current salary is not at the minimum.”

Since the staff report failed to elaborate on who would be effected or not, I sent a request into the city for clarification on May 24 that should the council agree to the range increase, who would be effected. That email was immediately responded back by Paul Abelson, Finance Director,  stating Mr. Montgomery created the report and that he would be getting back to me. That didn’t occur until 9:09 Tuesday morning.

There will be some employees that will be moved up to the minimum pursuant to the Compensation Policy – more would if the Council doesn’t suspend the Furlough Program. (So, yes, the extra hours worked if the Furlough Program is suspended helps put the employees within the ranges).  This list could be different depending on the Council action, but as proposed, the following position classifications would have to get a bump to hit the minimum:

  • City Clerk/Paralegal
  • Econ Dev/HR Administrator
  • Assistant to City Mgr
  • Recreation Manager
  • Police Services Asst
  • Parks Landscape Laborer
  • Maintenance Custodian/Code Enforcement

It should be noted, I did ask for the person and title–he failed to provide me who would be effected. Secondly, it does not say if these positions have multiple people working within the classification. Finally, how much are these employees making now and what will they be making from this action?   That is a lot of unanswered questions.

Instead, City Manager Bryan Montgomery painted a rosy picture of how staff weathered the storm.

“The good news is we are making it through the most difficult financial time that we will experience in our lifetime and Oakley made it through with lean staff and furlough days and without tax increases,” said Montgomery. “We weathered the storm.”

Really, how come numbers were not provided on city revenue, city spending, and other variables that would highlight this statement as true? Has Oakley began to recover revenue? Finally, where is this additional money coming from to pay for these increases?

Later, Montgomery stated “To help us weather the storm has been this small, lean, diligent staff and these resolutions would reflect a restoration of some of what has gone without the last few years.”

So pay attention to the word “restoration” which is to either increase or make up for something that was gone. Maybe what he should have said in an honest and straight forward way is that city employees have been doing the jobs of multiple people and it is time we get paid for it—at least its truthful and not a play on words.

Based off Montgomery’s talking points, the Council refused to ask a serious question or seek justification for the staff recommendation to increase their salaries.  Instead, Mayor Kevin Romick asks about PERS Increase vs. Salary Increase which was a planted question since he already knows the answer.

“Would you explain why it’s less expensive to give to PERS instead of salary,” asked Mayor Romick.

Montgomery credits the council for this idea, he explained that if there is a 2% salary increase, the base wage increases and the city must increase its PERS contribution—for subsequent years, it increases on a larger base. “One of the best techniques for operational techniques for budgets is keeping the base low,” explained Montgomery.

What does the Council not understand, a PERS contribution increase is a form of pay raise–so call it what it is instead of playing on words.

You have City Councilwoman Diane Burgis playing with numbers when she states.

“For fiscal 09/10 there were 36.1 employees and this fiscal year we had 29.89 which is 18% less doing my math. 09/10 we had a budget including contract employees at $1.723 million we are now at $1.41 million. We are 15% less we are operating at a smaller budget and smaller staff and the work has not shrunk. I am proud of our employees and I want to support them,” said Burgis.

Again, you have to look at the overall tax revenue, not number of city staff working. If the work level was so great, the City of Oakley would be looking at re-implementing a planning commission and creating more committees with public input to offer staff a guide of where they should be focusing their time.

But what Ms. Burgis highlighted was something that should have been included in the staff report, but was left out which was all city employee classifications and salaries from Fiscal Year 2009/10 to present day.

If Montgomery and the council would have wanted an “honest” debate, they would have been open about it and included salary/benefit histories in the staff report instead of folks having to put in a records request just to see it. By including the salaries, it would show that staff technically have been given raises over this five year period in one form of another.

In fact, I have it on good authority that the City of Oakley provided 3% raises last year hidden within the budget. While  some staff have already received raises this year.

So the real question is what is the total burden of cost to the City of Oakley for each year since 2009–meaning what is the total number of cost to the City of Oakley that includes salary, benefits, pension, or cash in lieu of for declining medical benefits? That is the real figure, not salary ranges as Montgomery proclaimed. In fact, why are these not even on the City Website?

An honest debate can only occur when the entire picture is painted, the document provided by Mr. Montgomery was incomplete and with the Council acting on an incomplete picture, they are essentially failing at being good stewards of the peoples money by failing to do their own due diligence by approving in a 4-0 vote the salary range increase.

For example, how can the council justify the Assistant to the City Manager and Economic Development/HR administrator getting a $12,000 jump in minimum salary?That is totally out of line.  In fact, if you pay attention, the staff report only provided monthly increase, it didn’t highlight what the increase was in an annual basis.

When you look at the assistant to the city manager, the position will be making between $90,480 at the low to $113,760 which is just straight salary and not including benefits or other perks. Looking at our Economic Development/HR person which is now a split position apparently, the position will make between $90,660 to $114,948 which is not including benefits or other perks.  That is just two positions, I could go down the list but you get the point.

Ultimately, this was a poor decision by the council to allow this to occur because the tax base is not there to justify any increase.

I ask the city council to be good stewards of the people’s money and rescind this item like they did with the Bryan Montgomery housing deal because its a bad deal for the Oakley residents and its highway robbery at this point in time.

Here is a look at all the salary ranges.

CityofOakleySalary

I ask the city council to be good stewards of the people’s money and rescind this item like they did with the Bryan Montgomery housing deal for many reasons.

Full Staff Report on Agenda Item 5.1

Burk Byline

By Michael Burkholder

You may also like

15 comments

Rob Saw May 31, 2013 - 8:18 am

I just threw up in my mouth when I see the assistant to the city manager could make more than a County Supervisor and makes a lot more than police, fire, and emts.

Why does any city need a min or max salary range? Whatever happened to the days when merritt and qualifications are what counted?

James May 31, 2013 - 9:21 am

I understand keeping staff, but at those salaries I why would anyone leave? I agee with you Mr. Burkholder, thanks for looking out for Oakley, doubt the council does the right thing here.

JimSimmons42 May 31, 2013 - 9:24 am

You folks in Oakley need to start paying attention to Burk, he is spot on. Start getting engaged or you will soon turn into Antioch. How the assistant to a city manager can sleep at night knowing she is robbing Oakley is beyond me. Shame on her.

Former Chamber Member May 31, 2013 - 9:35 am

Why are you the only one calling it like it is? I find that a shame that no one else in the city speaks out against the actions of the city. I am voting for you if you run for city council because the Montgomery rule of Oakley needs to be done with.

I would actually be curious to see the staff salaries and benefits from the past five years to see who has increased.

no name May 31, 2013 - 9:45 am

Nice going Burke, you are making an issue out of nothing. City staff has done more with less and they deserve compensation they haven’t been recieving. Anyone who supports you is an idiot.

Concerned Oakley Citizen May 31, 2013 - 10:24 am

Is that you Mr. Montgomery or Ms. Marquez wanting to keep us in the dark?

H8R of Big Gov May 31, 2013 - 12:56 pm

While I dont support BofO on any level other than his ability to serve up facts and opinions… I do supprt ideas… Like the ones outlined in the first ammendment to the Constitution. So it would be beneficial for all to note that you have a right to express that opinion… As it is mine to note that you are what most call a useful idiot. You are necesssry such that we can visualize what exactly is wrong with our country. Now scurry on knave… Be gone with you.

Concerned Oakley Citizen May 31, 2013 - 9:49 am

Disgusting! Thank you for highlighting this subject. I would not have known about this otherwise. Something needs to be done. This article should be posted all over the place to let Oakley citizens know what is being done with their taxpayer money. Instead of giving themselves raises they need to spend that money finishing the construction on Main St. that has been going on for more than 6 months which is inexcusable!

H8R of Big Gov May 31, 2013 - 12:48 pm

Is there any openings? This is good stuff BofO… Nice report. Maybe I should move over to public service so I can get rich.

Julio-Antioch May 31, 2013 - 2:01 pm

Oakley had better get rid of Mr. Montgomery and quickly. This has been pointed out many times. Mr. Montgomery is an irresponsible city manager. I applaud the strength your employees have shown during this terrible economy but now is not the time. You are walking in the bankrupt foot prints of Antioch and had better stop now. Mr. Montgomery has to go. Oakley is too young a city to start making these mistakes.

Terry May 31, 2013 - 5:22 pm

Mr. Burkholder is a hypocrite and full of sour grapes. He is a big bad man sitting behind a computer all day writing about east county and building a name off accidents and bad mouthing councils and city staff. Go do something productive and stop worrying about what city employees are making. Or, go to a meeting and speak out instead of being a Monday morning quarterback. No wonder why few people in the city of Oakley like you

H8R of Big Gov Jun 1, 2013 - 9:03 am

Sure… Ignore the man behind the curtain. Move along… Nothing to see here.
Unless seeing the continued ramp up of public employee pay and benefits is important to you. Some of those salaries are ridiculous, and the positions could be filled by many qualified people for less. Thd biggest immediate economic threat we all face is the runaway munincipal vovernments. See Bell, California for reference.

Eve May 31, 2013 - 5:25 pm

Sad that Oakley citizens refuse to speak up and continue to allow Montgomery and staff to rip off the residents. Time to replace the council for going along with this.

Former Resident May 31, 2013 - 9:57 pm

I have never been a fan of Mr. Burkholder; however, in this instance I have to say he brought up a good point. Like usual, he veered off path and lost sight of the important facts. Who cares how much these employees make … If he/she was worth it. If the employee has the education, experience, and proves him/herself, then sobeit. Our City could use some valuable employees. BUT, take the Assistant City Manager, for example. She has absolutely no experience working in a City & no proven track record. She is a college graduate making $90k! What a gig. Her public communication is often grammatically incorrect & confusing. She was hand picked by Mr. Montgomery & the council
adores her because Mr. Montgomery has convinced them to do so. Just do a little digging and you will soon see … Mr. Montgomery and Mrs. Marquez (and her family for that matter) go way back. The Internet is an amazing thing.

burkforoakley Jun 1, 2013 - 7:28 am

Just to clarify, I do believe some on city staff are underpaid. I have no problem with the raises as long as their is an honest debate which there was not one nor was the full burden on the city provided. As you say, if they are worth it, they are worth it… but that is also subjective.

Comments are closed.