Brentwood officials Monday night passed a bill to base city employees’ pay on the market — top pay would be set at 75 percent of 14 area comparator cities. Another bill removed employment longevity as a basis for raises. The bills will be in effect for 2016.
Correction: Per Mayor Chris Thornton, the bill only required a simple majority to pass and was passed by a 6-1 vote with Alderwoman Manestar abstaining. During the discussion of the bill, Alderman Toohey moved to end discussion and proceed directly to a vote on the bill. This motion (to end discussion) required six votes to pass and was passed on a 6-2 vote.
Aldermen David Plufka, Keith Slusser, Steve Lochmoeller, Tom Kramer, Patrick Toohey and Andy Leahy voted yes. Alderwoman Maureen Saunders voted no.
Also from Thornton: As indicated by the votes, the compensation bill (#6019) and the bill regarding changes to the Employee Handbook (#6024) were passed by a significant majority of the Board of Alderman; much more than the simple majority necessary. Together these bills implemented almost all of the recommendations made by Higbee Associates, LLC in November 2014.
The plan is based on a study comparing Brentwood’s pay with 14 area cities done last summer by Higbee Associates.
Mayor Chris Thornton put the bill on the agenda. “I think this puts us on the path to a place where Brentwood needs to be, and that’s basing its compensation on a market philosophy, and moving in that direction consistently,” he said after it passed.
Saunders said Brentwood’s pay will meet the 75th percentile overall, but some top paid positions moved up and some lower paid positions moved down. As a result some employees now above market will actually be paid more.
She said the fire captain, for instance, moved up in pay range, while others — such as a custodian — moved down. See also: Maureen Saunders expands on her opposition to compensation bill
“By moving some of the people who are at lower pay scales down — and they’re happy to have a job, so they might not mind necessarily being on a lower pay range — those are the individuals that really need the money, and that’s disappointing to me.”
She also said fire fighters and police officers should have pay parity. The fire fighters union had to approve the pay scale for the Brentwood fire fighters.
Both Manestar and Saunders objected because scheduled board workshops on the bill didn’t take place.
“I just felt like it just favored certain individuals,” Manestar said after the meeting. “It really didn’t give a full picture of how it affects all the city employees. I didn’t agree with it at all, so I abstained.”
The Firefighters Union had to agree and approve this pay scale for the Brentwood Fire Department. It was the Union representing the demands of the Brentwood firemen- and their demands were MORE MONEY – A LOT MORE MONEY! More money than any other Fire Department and more money than most Fire Protection Districts across St. Louis County and likely across the State. After 20-some years of gaining illegal overtime pay at the tax payers expense the city is now going to over compensate the fire department, once again at the taxpayers expense. And this makes sense how???? Bamboozled is right!
Brentwood’s firefighters do not deserve to be paid more than our police officers, nor do they deserve to be paid more than the firefighters of much-wealthier Clayton, Ladue, and Frontenac. And yet that is today’s reality, and it’s about to get worse.
How did this happen? Why are Brentwood’s firefighters paid so well? We can thank Mayor Kelly, who maintained a cozy relationship with the BFD and did everything he could to keep the firefighters happy in return for their key support every election year. Kelly gave them big salaries and a swank new fire house, then claimed to know nothing about their long-running illegal overtime practice when the prosecutors came calling.
With their high salaries, comfortable digs, and few fires to fight, members of the BFD are the envy of firefighters throughout our region, and thanks to last Monday’s action by the aldermen, some of them will soon receive big pay raises for no reason, and we the taxpayers will have to pay for these. No wonder firefighters were seen celebrating at O. B. Clark’s after their latest victory at City Hall.
Alderwoman Saunders is correct that in today’s Brentwood, policing is more dangerous than firefighting and we should be paying our police officers at least as much as our firefighters, if not more.
Truth, remember the Mo State Auditor’s Report, shows how much we should trust the city administrator, mayor, city attorney and majority of the aldermen.
When the city has open meetings in Eureka and St. Charles at 6:00 pm on a weekday evening to discuss compensation, it kind of raises some concerns. This is what I remember Higbee (compensation professional) saying from the November 2014 Ways and Means meeting: “There are 19 incumbents below the market minimum and the cost to adjust would be $26,910.14 annually. Those below the market minimum are at the highest risk for leaving, are the most difficult to attract quality talent and should be the first priority for budgeting. There are 24 employees at or above the maximum range and it was suggested that no salary adjustments in base pay are made until the market catches up with them.”
It seems the opposite of this recommendation was proposed Monday night.
Jim, since you seem to have all of the answers, why don’t you run for the Board of Aldermen?
And since you ARE an alderman, why didn’t you respond to the information Mr. Pozzo presented rather than the childish response you gave?
The board followed the Higbee recommendation. The meeting Higbee made her recommendations is on Youtube and the bill, now ordinance, is a public document. Jim can review them both. How about running for the board? Jim is at all of the meetings, he feels things are mismanaged, then he should get involved. Next month he can put his name on the ballot.
The reason I abstained is because I simply did not agree with this bill. The only portion of the bill I agreed with is having a 7 step, pay plan for police & fire. The reason being, individuals performing those public safety positions assume the same risk, whether they have been there for 2 years or 20 years and therefore should be compensated accordingly. The pay increases would be annually, so for a newer employee it would take 7 years to get to top pay. I also wasn’t opposed to having a 12 step plan for non-commissioned or non public safety employees. It’s the way the ranges were structured that I didn’t agree with.
Both our police & fire depts, are paid well over the comparable cities, in some cases $10,000 to $15,000 over. The police positions, as well as other non-commissioned employee positions, will remain frozen indefinitely until the market catches up, but that’s not the case with the fire dept. There are several positions within the fire dept that will see substantial pay increases, even though they are already paid well above the top market pay.
The purpose of the compensation study was to bring the entire city into alignment with other comparable cities. Several of the employee positions that are currently being underpaid, according to the Higbee study, will only receive small increases to get them to the minimum market range or no pay increase at all because they were moved into a lower pay range. To substantially increase the pay of those who are already being paid way above market (regardless of what dept they are in) by moving those positions into a higher pay range, defeats the purpose of the compensation studies intent. Personally, my goal was to ensure that ALL city employees were treated fairly.
Oh, and by the way, I’d like to wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving! 🙂
“The reason I abstained is because I simply did not agree with this bill.”
I think you abstained for two reasons. The reading of Bill 6029 only minutes before would have been a conflict of interest for you. It’s about time bill 6029 is coming to pass.
Secondly, because your husband wasn’t going to get a pay raise, above his already inflated salary, but instead have a frozen salary. I would have been curious to see the outcome had you financially benefited from this. I’m sure Maureen would have never said a word, and it would have been another “yes” vote. We aren’t blind to the fact that since you couldn’t vote on this, Maureen did all the talking and pushing for you.
At first it bothered me that Cindy was going to vote on this but as I spent more time thinking about this and speaking about this with the city attorney she has every right to vote (But I understand her abstaining). She was elected by her ward and is she doesn’t vote her ward does not have a voice. Additionally we have 8 Aldermen and one person’s vote cannot really change a thing. She is put in a difficult position of being “damned if she does” and “damned if she doesn’t” so ITS NOT FAIR TO JUMP CINDY ON THIS TOPIC. I hope we can move away from just assuming elected officials have selfish intentions with their votes unless we have proof. We have to believe that the elected officials can vote independently of their personal agenda otherwise why are we electing these people? Making unsubstantiated claims against elected officials or election candidates is not what Brentwood wants or needs…… And please lets not attack our employees for their rate of pay. The city determines what the employee salaries are not the employees themselves. Who of us in the community would not accept pay raises from our employers even if it resulted in being paid above our market peers? Has anyone in Brentwood ever been offered a raise and told their employer “No, this is way too much, please reduce my salary”?
Of these two scenarios which is more likely.
1. 6 elected officials were all bamboozled and there is only 1 person on the board that truly knows what is going on? or…
2. 6 elected officials studied the information and made the best decision for the City and residents of Brentwood, 1 elected official wanted more money for her husband (a police officer) and voted no and the last person is so upset that she didn’t get her way that she is going out of her way to vilify the fire department and rest of the board?
Please everyone open your eyes. Just cause you are the loudest doesn’t make you right.
Exactly. Cindy and Maureen have subtlety complained the whole time about Cindy’s husband not getting a raise. Brentwood PD are amongst the highest paid in the state. Mr. Manestar is paid way above the market, but you never once saw either of them mention THAT!
If Saunders gives Manestar’s husband a raise then she can ensure her biggest supporter stays in line. Under this fradulent vail of doing what is best for the city she throws tax dollars at those who support her. Saunders is just Pat Kelly with lip stick.
Absolutely! Six aldermen, a mayor, a well respected consultant and professional in the field, a labor attorney, an HR professional and a city administrator have all worked together to ensure that certain positions in the Brentwood Fire Department can have the opportunity to earn $10,000 per year more than they are currently making! Maybe, just maybe, there is more to this story . . . . .
Really? I’m sure I could think of many scenarios other than those two. Corruption comes to mind.
What is going on in Brentwood? Everytime I open an article, I feel like I am walking into an episode of house of cards. It astounds me to see the number of shady things happening there. Whether it is Toohey running falsely as a licensed CPA or the motion by the same moron to censure Saunders, it just seems to me that the city needs to do away with the whole lot of them minus Saunders
the general public of Brentwood gets no raises, the average family’s buying power is down close to $5000 on average, health care premiums are up across the board and there is little to no inflation, so let’s give the people who work for us raises while we the people they serve go backwards.
Who elected the Mayor and the Alderpersons, the Brentwood Employees or the Brentwood Citizens? It appears our elected officials are more worried about being liked by employees and don’t care about trying to cut taxes for the citizens who could use help. Then again, the elected officials also recognize that we as citizens pay so little attention to what is going on at city hall that they can get away with just about anything they want. We have only ourselves to blame for electing these folks who voted against what is best for we the people.
Did I hear that right? “They are happy to have a job”
Let me clarify. In today’s world, individuals are willing to take a job at a lower salary than their experience warrants. This is because jobs are scarce. Brentwood is in a position to pay higher wages. In the new compensation plan some of the lower paying positions were moved to a lower pay range compared to other cities . The comparator cities would pay these same positions at a higher salary range. Some Brentwood employees pay ranges will exceed top market pay while some of the lower paid employees are paid less than the 75th percentile. This is unfair and wrong. This a tricky topic and I wished the mayor organized a workshop(s) so it could have been better explained to the aldermen and public.
Good job Cindy. As it turns out, your vote didn’t count, so that is ok with me. I would NEVER take money from a worker because THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE A JOB. The acceptable way is to give no wage increase or smaller increases, until they become even with the target salary.
It happened to me one time, and blew the heck out of our household budget. Personally, I would have voted, “No.”
Comments are closed.