Antioch Council tables department head salary adjustments
Following approval of contracts last fall and second survey of nearby cities
“It will cost the city $487,000 more in pay, not including benefits…for just these 12 individuals,” – Mark Haddock
By Allen D. Payton
After a lengthy discussion during their meeting, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2023, the city council voted 4-1 to table the proposed department head salary adjustments. During her staff report City of Antioch Human Resources Director Ana Cortez said a 2022 salary survey showed for the city’s department heads, there was a difference of as much as $3,000 per month between their salaries ranging from $15,545 to $18,896 per month. Also, lower-level staff members are being paid more than the department heads, she shared.
“No one will be taking a pay cut,” Cortez added about the proposal.
During public comments Mark Haddock said, “A comparison of 11 neighboring cities shows some department heads are getting paid less would have an increase and those being paid more would remain the same.”
“The HR Director in 2021 in Step E would be making $161,000 per year. A new salary became $180,000 per year. This new proposal would have Step E, at $228,000 a $48,000 increase,” Haddock stated.
“It will cost the city $487,000 more in pay, not including benefits…for just these 12 individuals,” he said.
During council discussion of the item District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica asked Cortez, “the survey we’re using for directors, currently, is that the same survey used during contract negotiations?”
No. That was a different…it was done more of a compensation survey,” Cortez responded. “I was looking at what other cities are doing…of having one salary range for all department heads.”
“We didn’t use that same survey or cities for this one…that’s what has me concerned,” Barbanica said. “Three months later we’re increasing the pay for department heads. That’s why I’m not for this.”
“We negotiated in good faith with all the bargaining units,” Ogorchock stated. “I also feel that in this package we’re not looking at the benefits. Our employees may be getting quite a bit more in benefits than these other cities. When I spoke with Brentwood, today this was the case. If we’re not comparing apples to apples…I’m going to stand by what we did several months ago.”
“Why wasn’t this discussed when we were going through contract negotiations?” Wilson asked.
“She wasn’t there,” Thorpe responded referring to Cortez.
“I was tasked with looking at salaries,” Cortez said.
“The reason that came was we gave direction to do that,” Thorpe said. “We asked them to do that.”
“I don’t recall us asking for a new survey,” Barbanica stated.
“You’re right,” Thorpe said. “I think what we ended up doing was a desk audit. Because people felt their pay was unfair and inequitable. Some of our department heads who have been here the longest were getting paid less than others who came, yesterday. Some of our department heads are women” and mentioned “the discrepancies particularly around gender.”
“I see both sides of the coin. We went through negotiations, and this should have been part of it. I’m seeing salaries that are not in line,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said.
Ogorchock moved to table the item. Wilson seconded the motion.
Barbanica then said, “I’d rather this item just die and go away and come back the right way,” and offered a substitute motion.
“It doesn’t have all of our employees working off of one survey, we closed those negotiations. Send this back to staff and come back to us with a study or a proposal that is the same cities we asked all the employees to use,” he stated.
Thorpe seconded the motion.
If we do that, we’re still renegotiating with directors. Are we going to go back and renegotiate with all the MOU’s?” Ogorchock asked. “If we do this, we’re showing bad faith with all the other city employees. I understand there’s disparities. I think when we did the negotiations that’s when it should be discussed.”
“When was the close of the last directors’ negotiation?” Barbanica asked.
“It started with negotiations,” Thorpe said. “We negotiated in good faith. It’s taken this long to get up here.”
“I just didn’t know we would be using a different survey. I just want to stick to the same survey,” Barbanica stated. “We should be looking at this into the future. I just don’t like the study that was done.”
“I can go back and take a look. The salary survey done back then is outdated,” Cortez stated. “It was looking at one salary range. If I go back…it would not be comparing the same thing…of what I’m going to be comparing. Not all the agencies I surveyed had one salary range.”
“Our ask is to go back and look at those cities and see where they’re at,” Thorpe said.
“It can’t be that outdated we just closed with these groups a couple months ago,” Barbanica stated.
“Why would upper management sign the MOU, then?” Ogorchock asked.
“It was my understanding they believed they were going to look at the compaction,” Barbanica responded.
“I don’t recall that,” Ogorchock said.
“They looked at several positions,” Thorpe said. “We did a whole bunch of them. It’s not a mysterious thing.”
“I’m just trying to get clarification,” Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker said. “Some people were not happy. Now, we’re here to discuss what was reviewed through that process. Management is hoping to come back. We had a salary survey done…now, we want them to go back and do another survey using the same salary survey and same salaries we already used.”
“If you don’t support it, if you don’t feel comfortable,” vote against it she urged her colleagues.
“Did you meet and confer with management on this?” Thorpe asked.
City Clerk Ellie Householder announced, “Ana Cortez nodded her head in response to the mayor’s question.”
Todd Northam an employee with the City’s Public Works Department then spoke on the motion mentioning, “The ‘me too’ clause that management had.”
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re locked in and bound,” he said. “Those at the bottom are the ones who are hurting. Those one-percenters at the top it means another pair of Guccis. You need to do the right thing for Antioch.”
Barbanica then said, “based on that comment I withdraw my substitute motion.”
“Then we go back to the original motion to table,” Thorpe said.
The motion to table passed on a 4-1 vote with Torres-Walker voting no.
the attachments to this post:
No Pay Raise
