Salaries for county officeholders

Our elected county officials who comprise the salary commission would like everyone to know that they don't set their own salaries. There's truth to that. And a little spin, too.

On Nov. 3, the salary commission authorized a 3.5 percent salary increase for the offices that are next up for election. That's a simple sentence that comes with a fair amount of complexity.

Before we can unravel the spin, there are some basic facts that must be understood about how this process works.

* The statutes lay out certain guidelines for salary increases and cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for elected county officials. The county has been dealing with COLAs since 1998.

* The salary commission, which is required to meet at least every two years, is set up by state statute, and includes every county officeholder except the circuit clerk.

* The salary commission "authorizes" cost of living adjustments to be approved by the county commission.

* The county commission "implements" the adjustments, but may completely ignore the salary commission's authorization and go a different direction. (According to an attorney who represents the Missouri Association of Counties).

* Elected officials' cost of living adjustments (COLAs) cannot be higher than what the county commission approves for other county employees.

* The COLAs affect every elected county officeholder except the circuit clerk and prosecuting attorney.

* The presiding county commissioner, collector, recorder, treasurer, auditor, collector, public administrator and assessor all have the same base salaries; the associate commissioners make $2,000 less than the presiding commissioner by law. Other officeholders are either not full time or their base salaries are determined by specific statutes.

COLA with kick

Last April, the Southeast Missourian published an investigative report showing that under this system our county officeholders had seen their salaries increase 68 percent from 1997 through 2010.

That's double the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the universal measurement used to set inflationary increases for things like Social Security.

Over time, the salary commission system has resulted in raises for the typical officeholder (associate commissioners, recorder, treasurer, auditor, collector, public administrator and assessor) of $13,400 a year above the CPI. Individually each makes roughly $70,000 per year.

At some point, over a period of several years with compounding interest, our officers were no longer taking COLAs. They were taking martinis.

Legally, there's nothing wrong with that.

The statutes that govern salary commissions set no restrictions on COLAs. Our salary commission has authorized an arbitrary 3.5 percent COLA every year since moving up to first class. (No one seems to know why that number came about; according to minutes, it first entered the discussion in 1995 when the county was making the transition to first class status.)

Since 1997, only once was the annual CPI higher than 3.5.

What does this mean to taxpayers? It means this year in Cape Girardeau County we're collectively paying $110,000 more, above inflation, for our officeholders' salaries.

Salary spin

While this newspaper was compiling information for last April's investigative piece, we heard several arguments justifying the increases, and some of those continue today. Here is an attempt to address some of them.

The Spin: "We don't set the salaries, the county commission does." The argument from those on the salary commission is that the responsibility rests on the county commission to set officeholders' salaries. The statute requires the salary commission to establish that the county is in good fiscal standing. The county commission could disregard any authorization, making the salary commission vote insignificant.

Untangled: It's true the county commission's No. 1 priority is to set the budget for the county and its decisions supersede the salary commission's. But the salary commission is doing more than merely making a recommendation. It is authorizing that percentage, at least according to Ivan Schrader, the legal counsel for the Missouri Association of Counties. In our view, each officeholder who votes to authorize the COLA is saying to the county commission, "We deserve to be paid this specific increase if the county can afford it."

Given the pace at which the salaries are escalating, it seems disingenuous to authorize any arbitrary increase without considering economic conditions and long-term ramifications.

It is our belief that the general assembly has given the salary commission a responsibility. We don't think Missouri's lawmakers wanted salary commissions to operate on martini autopilot. The salary commission should justify the increase in the open meeting.

Besides, it has expanded on its role before. A few years ago the salary commission called for a study to investigate the wages for employees, to make sure they were in line with other counties. Nothing in the statutes gives them the authority to do this. Surely, the salary commission could publicly justify a specific salary increase.

The spin: "We're getting the same increases that everybody else gets." The argument has been made that the salary commission and the county commission are treating officeholders like every other county employee.

Untangled: This is true. The problem is, officeholders shouldn't be treated like everyone else. As a management team responsible for budgetary decisions, particularly the county commission, our officeholders must look at the big picture and realize two things.

First, that the same percentage for highly paid employees is more real dollars than lower paid employees. Secondly, that the county can neither eliminate an elected position nor pay a new officeholder less than the preceding one, which can be done with other employees to help control payroll expenses.

These factors create a scenario, if not managed carefully, that will result in a crippling income disparity between officeholders and employees. More important, it's a potential budget killer in the future.

The spin: "We're not setting our salaries; we're setting the salaries for whomever wins the next election."

Untangled: It's true that the law prevents officeholders from establishing their own salaries. Indeed they're setting the mark for the office after the election, not the person. But based on a history of long-standing incumbents, there is a strong chance an officeholder is indeed voting on his or her own salary. Unless an official says he or she will not run for re-election, let's not pretend otherwise.

What's next?

We have heard that some county officials have been discussing behind the scenes how to address the county salary situation, and that they're frustrated by the process.

We've heard the complaint that the salary commission system doesn't allow for flexibility due to the requirement that all officeholders get equal percentage increases. Because of the staggered election cycle, the system is cumbersome.

We were disappointed, however, that even that sentiment was not discussed at the recent salary commission meeting. Only Associate County Commissioner Jay Purcell voted against the authorization. He suggested a freeze. The brief discussion fizzled, and 3.5 was approved in a very short meeting.

Now the decision is before the county commission. We understand the county commission is considering setting the officeholders' salaries at a lower rate than the other employees. This move by our county commission would be a prudent start to addressing the situation.

It should be noted that on the whole, the county is in very good financial shape, with $5 million in reserves. Our officeholders have been conservative in spending and responsible with our tax dollars, despite some personality clashes and missteps along the way. Many counties would trade spreadsheets in a heartbeat. That's not spin.

But allowing above-inflation COLA increases year after year after year with no way of controlling that portion of the payroll budget is not responsible government. And if nothing else, it's insensitive during this economy.

We expect the county commission will get it straightened out. We think there should at least be an open discussion.

It's a matter of public trust.