We are here for purpose of recording. I'll just go ahead and read off who is in attendance, and then if anybody is online, and I don't read your name, if you'll chime in. So we've got Brandon McHugh, Brett Robinson, representing Senegal, Stuart Williams, Stu Young, representing the AG, Sam Smith, Jeff Gray, Karen Walker, Stephen Foote, and Ed Montgomery. Have I missed anybody? I don't think so. So the reason that we're here today is just to talk about salary issues that we didn't get to in the last council meeting. And so let me go through the agenda that I sent you, and then we'll take the motion to go into closed door meeting, and we can do one of two things is, if you would rather, I can use my microphone, because I've got to keep recording. Even though you're in closed door meeting, I can use my mic, so I'm not listening to what you have to say, or if you want me to just stand, I'm not offended by anything that you have to say. So I'll let you guys decide how you want to do that.
Hey, Bob, before we go, and I know I've mentioned this before, I don't know that this qualifies to go into a closed door. Nothing in this agenda looks like we're talking about character or competency. This is a budget discussion in my mind.
And that may be, and that's a good point. It's just, I know the council has done it in the past, so, you know, if y'all feel that this doesn't warrant closed door session, we don't have to. That saves me a lot of formality. Or the formality of having to do some additional affidavits and whatnot.
Because to me, it looks like whether, like, we're going to be discussing a, it's a budget discussion in my mind, and it's not necessarily the person in the position. It's whether we're going to, what we're going to do with this 2 to 5% option.
I think on the flip side, yeah, the other thing to take into consideration is, are you going to discuss anybody's character or their qualifications? You know, for the raise, that might be the only thing, but I think it's just strictly going to be a budget question, then you're going to take a motion on that?
Well, I think Bob raises, I'm certainly going to talk about, I think if we're going to talk about what somebody should be paid, I think that goes hand in hand with what somebody is worth, but that's just how I see it. I don't know that I particularly care one way or the other, but there might be some comments that.
I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter whether it's Bob or anybody in that position we're talking about, right? We're talking about whether as a structure, we're going to have this additional pay for at will employees.
Well, I think it depends on what the basis for the raise is. I mean, you know, if somebody's not doing a good job, then you're going to be discussing their character and, you know, evaluating their performance. I don't know that it's, I don't know the nature, is this a cost of living increase or is this a performance increase? It kind of depends on the nature of the.
Yeah, so what it is, Jeff, is in talking with Etta Adkins, she's the HR director, back in the end of May, and she told me that the state HR adopted a policy a number of years ago that said that if somebody went into a management position where they are now a, they lose their career status and they're no longer a merit employee, that they're entitled anywhere from, or the state authorizes anywhere from a two and a half to five percent salary increase. And that's set by the individual agency. And so, if you hold to the strict definition is Tyson and Trent are not in management, but they have lost their career status, so the three attorneys were all non-merit employees. So that's why Etta said it would be appropriate to discuss that increase for all three attorneys at UBC, anywhere from that two and a half to five percent. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, I mean, kind of. So they've changed the salary structure a little bit.
Yeah, in the past, the UBC attorneys, we were paid based on the number of years, our bar admission date. But Etta informed me that because we're now, unlike the rest of, well, unlike the majority of the attorneys, the AG's office, you don't have that status. So if you're a YRS or UBC goes away, we're not absorbed back into the AG's office.
So a question for you, but my question is, did Trent and, did you guys, were you guys all merit-based prior to now?
No, no, we've always been at-will employees.
I mean, I would say that it's an open meeting unless somebody wants to discuss character during the course of it, in which case they can move to close it. I mean, that's my personal opinion, but.
Additionally, before that happens, I think we should look at the agenda that was printed out. Number five says report what was decided during closed-door session. And that doesn't happen. We don't decide anything in the closed-door session. You can't. So I'll just move to strike number five from the actual agenda today.
Oh, thank you. Yeah, that was a poor choice. So then I'll strike, well, I'll leave the motion to go into closed-door session. Well, actually, let me strike that because I'm talking before we even go into closed-door session. I mean, what do you all think? Do you want to go with Jeff and treat that as a motion that Stuart, that this is a budget discussion and unless and until you guys start talking about character and confidence, then consider going into closed-door?
I think so, because I think we need to discuss where the money is coming from, where we have it from, and that kind of thing first, and then make the decision on whether we need to discuss any of the other things.
Right.
I agree.
Okay, well, that's the motion. All in favor?
Aye. Aye. Okay.
All right.
It's all in favor. Let me make a note.
Okay, so quickly on the agenda is the office moved me up to a grade five attorney, which I appreciate Stuart's on here. I know we had his support and I appreciate that. That hasn't happened in the past. So that resulted in a $3 an hour increase to my salary. And so my hourly salary is listed there. Trent was approved, and I confirmed this for me, that he was approved for grade four, again, with the support of the office. And so that is bumping him as a $3 increase, which bumped his salary up to $68.27. Then, and there's what I've explained earlier is that Eda has explained to me that non-merit at will employees are eligible for that two and a half to five percent salary increase. And so, and I had spoken with Stu before. I think maybe Stu, when you and I talked, I hadn't heard back from Eda yet. But I hope I'm not speaking out of turn when Stu says whatever the council talked about, he'll take back to AG exec and pass that information along. Is that still fair representation, Stu?
Yeah. I mean, it's your money. I mean, it's the council's money. So who's the AG's office to tell you guys how to spend it? We're just one vote and whatever. And if the council believes that this is how the money should be used, that's fine. I don't have any, I mean, AG's office doesn't have an issue with it and neither do I.
All right. Thank you. So what I did is I went with the maximum amount of the five percent. So if you just did a straight five percent on my friend's Tyson salary, the hourly rates are listed there in the agenda. Oh, and I forgot, there's two things that I need to bring to your attention. After last council meeting, Tyson was prepping to submit his grant application and he asked if there would be any salary increase. And I said there was a possibility that there could be up to a five percent salary increase. There's no guarantee on that. And so he submitted his grant application based on that amount. The reason that that's important is 80 percent of his salary is covered by grant funds. You can see only pays for 20 percent of the salary. So just note on that. And the other thing that's important is when I heard that budget that I sent to you all showing only a $5,000 projected income for next year, that just did not sit right. And I've been racking my brains and about 20 minutes ago, I realized that what I had failed to do is, Ron, we did about $70,000 in grant funds towards Ron's salary. That is not reflected in the income. So on the bottom line, the net revenue, instead of a $5,000 net revenue projected next year, add $70,000 to that. So I'm projecting at a minimum of $75,000 net revenue to next year's income. And that's if all we have is an $80,000 carryover. The last two years, it's been a little bit more than that, but I try to keep it around $80,000 is what I'm projecting.
So that's fair to say, Bob, fair to say that if we wanted to go to five percent, we could do that fairly comfortably.
Yes. Now that I found that $70,000, which I knew was hiding there somewhere, yes, we can do that comfortably.
When do you know, Bob, when do you know when Ron's gets renewed? Is it every year?
It's every year. Yeah, it's a yearly grant. It has been awarded every year for the last five or six years. I am just getting ready to submit my grant application for this year, working closely with CCJJ. They can't tell me that it's an absolute, that that grant will be awarded. But CCJJ really has a high interest in the prosecutor being maintained in the offices that it's being maintained in as part of that prosecutor data reporting requirement. And I tell you that only, well, I'm not sure why I'm telling you that, other than they have our support and they believe that the grant will be renewed. And I'm planning on submitting that grant application either probably by tomorrow. And so if it's renewed, it goes into effect October 1st.
It's a federal grant.
So that, unless you have any other questions, that's the information then on the attorney's salaries. The other issue I would like you to consider, and I'll make a recommendation on this one, is Emma. Most of you have met Emma by now. She's doing a good job. She's part-time, three-quarter time. She averages anywhere from 45 to 60 hours a week. So that makes her a non-benefited position. When we hired her, as you can see in the notes, we just hired her as a secretary and we're paying her $21 an hour. And again, I'm talking with Etta and describing the responsibilities that Emma has taken on. Etta has said that that falls more in line with an administrative secretary position, which would bump her, make her eligible for a higher hourly rate. And so what Etta was suggesting is that if we had done this six weeks ago, is to bump her up to $22 an hour. And then when she's on probation on July 22nd, which is next week, consider giving her another raise. I know I put in the notes 5.5%, but as I was talking with Marilyn, I think that Emma's doing a really good job and we would just recommend bumping her up to $20.50 an hour. That's a little bit higher than the 5.5%, but it is well within the range of what an administrative secretary is making, which is, that range is $18.96 on the low end up to $37.67 on the high end. And she certainly isn't on the high end, but we have her doing QuickBooks and some other technical things, which has bumped her up. And so no, I feel like a bump up to $22.50 would represent the work that she's doing for us and the good work that she's done. So that would be my recommendation.
Just from the UPAA perspective, she definitely deserves to be on the higher end. She did a lot for us during our conference.
Thank you for joining. I don't think I could bring you down. Oh no, maybe I did. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you for that input, Karen.
So Bob, just to clarify, the budget in tab A does not include the $70,000 grant money? That's correct. Yeah.
So if you just go to the last page where the net revenue currently says $5,688 at $70,000.
Okay.
And I'm happy to send out a new version that reflects that, but that was the amount that I was missing, that $70,000.
So I have a question. So your advancement to grade five, we're not considering that. That's what the AG's office approved, right?
Correct. Oh yeah. So I was just going to explain to you, Jeff, you used to work there, you know what that means. It's just based on number of years.
Yeah. And so again, I mean, again, I have the question is where the two and a half to 5%, does that represent a cost of living increase or does that represent a merit increase?
The way that Ed explained it is, it's the value of not having job security.
Okay. And as I understand that, correct me if I'm wrong, Bob, that is not just something they made up for UPC. That's the standard of the Attorney General's office and has been for at least a decade.
Well, I want to clarify that it's the standard during state HR policy, but Ed doesn't know that the Attorney General's office has adopted that across the board. She just knows that for UPC attorneys and has never applied.
Okay. All right. That helps.
So maybe I'm beating a dead horse here. So I'm looking at the UPC staff attorney discussion. That grade five attorney would be 86.52 an hour. You're with the 5%, you're looking at 90.85 an hour. That does not include that $3 increase then?
No, that is. So the 90.85 is five and a half percent on top of my new hourly rate of 86.52 if I did my math correct.
But whatever it is, it's all included in what's in tab A?
Correct. Yeah.
That total amount would be the $3 plus the five or five and a half percent, whatever it is.
Right. I figured you didn't want me to give you a bunch of different spreadsheets, so I just went with 5% and then either go with that or go with something less.
Bob, we have a lot of attorneys talking numbers and we keep saying 5%, but I think it's 5% not 5.5%. Oh, did I bump it five and a half? Not on the paperwork. I think you just said that verbally and you guys were saying- Oh, yeah.
No, no, no. The 5%. Yeah. It's two and a half up to 5%. Okay. Thank you.
The 5.5 is for Emma. Yes.
Yeah. That was for Emma, but I'm actually, after talking with Marilyn, we're recommending a little bit higher than that. If we bump her to $23.50 an hour, that represents more than five and a half percent.
Does that include her one-year bonus or not? It does not. Her one-year bump up?
No, it does not.
So what percentage of that, another 5% on top of that?
Sorry, Steven. Yes, it would, because Edda suggested that we bump her up to $22 at a year and then increase her salary after that, but we're just recommending, as of July 22nd, bumping her to $23.50 an hour. So that includes her one-year plus the increase based on her duties.
But that's not in the spreadsheet, right? That's not in your tab A?
No, it is.
Up to the $23.50 or just to the $23, whatever it was, $21.
Thank you. Thank you. No, I did not calculate hers. In the spreadsheet, it represents, again, $22.79 an hour is what the spreadsheet is recommending. So at $37.12 represents $22.79 an hour, whereas $3.50 an hour is not quite another dollar an hour. So $3.50 for an hour.
Does anybody object to Emma's increase?
I just want to make sure that we have the money for whatever we do.
It sounds like Bob, I think we've got, if we max everything out, we still have about $75,000 holdover, which is pretty consistent with what we've been carrying for years.
Right. So the only question I had on hers is everybody else has benefits included. Hers has nothing included. I know she doesn't receive state benefits, but we do pay money in regards to, I'm assuming, I don't know, does AG's office not do Social Security and that type of thing?
That's a good question. I don't know the answer to.
Yeah, I'm sure she's on workers comp and stuff.
So the money line, it's going to be a little bit different, but with the amount we're talking about with hers, less than a dollar an hour, it's, at arm of ours, it's insignificant as far as the total, I think.
It would be my motion to approve Emma's increase, and then let's talk about the attorneys.
I second it.
Thank you. All in favor?
Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Does anybody have any heartburn or objection to the 5% based on the merit status for the attorneys?
I don't. I mean, quite frankly, I think that they earn it merit-wise, but I also, I mean, they do tremendous work. But my only concern on how we characterize it, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse either, but let's say Bob decides to leave, all right, and we find somebody with comparable years and qualification, are we going to be tied? I mean, if it's not merit-based, then it seems like we would be tied to the number that he's making, and I'm not sure that we would want to tie ourselves that way.
I certainly, yeah, I definitely share your concerns, Jeff, exactly what I was thinking. I believe our authority is we have exclusive control over what we pay anybody, and so if we bring somebody else in, I think we can set their salary however we want to.
So let me just chime in and help you there, Jeff, just for everybody else. So my base salary is based on my bar admission date. So I've been an attorney for 33 years. So that's the starting salary point that you can look at. And depending upon how they get hired into, how they enter into the system, either as a grade four, which is what I have been for the last 11 years. I mean, the last 11 years, I've been eligible for grade five, but I got brought in at a grade four level, so that's what you would look at is, so Jeff, if you found somebody that had 30 years experience, you would start at a grade four salary, and then if they came in at a grade five, then they would essentially be making the same amount hourly that I'm making. And then if you gave them that 5%, it would be right where I'm at.
Yeah, and I guess my question is, would we be obligating ourselves to a 5% retention on somebody that came in? I mean, I think we all want to, I mean, certainly from my perspective, I fully approve that. And for every, all the attorneys with you guys, my question is, would that be required? Somebody, is that, are we binding ourselves to that?
I don't think it's required, but I think what it's coming out is we're giving a percentage for the risk of being at will. So if we hire somebody even at a much less, you know, less experienced than Bob to take that position, we're saying that this position is, because you could go away tomorrow, you almost get a 5% risk increase.
But because we are giving it to Bob, because of what he's done, it's a merit.
I'm not doing that. I'm giving it to the position, not the person. That's how I do that.
Okay, so your position would be, a replacement would be worth that 5%.
Yeah, because they're taking on, they may not make the same as Bob, because he might hire some lower, but yeah.
Okay. Bob, can I ask you a question as well? Please. Because again, I don't always know your guys' budgetary limits. Here in Cedar, we have a paid wage, right? So I have a cap. Do you have that same concern for you and your attorneys? Is there a point, if we give it all as merit, you're going to be hitting the cap sooner, or do you even have that?
I have not been told that we have a cap.
Okay, and at least as far as I'm concerned, in the past, when we first hired Bob, we go back that far, the salary that the AG's office had set at that point in time, I think we actually went and gave Bob more than what he qualified for in the very beginning. But because of the raises that the AG's office has had, that's why it's moved up so much higher than it was before. So we could pay above what the AG's office pays. I think that if it really came down to it in our choice, we could pay less than what the AG's office says to pay. But it's an at-will position.
I think that's correct.
I think the 5% really is a decision on these positions, should we pay that premium because of their lack of job security.
Yeah, and quite frankly, to retain them. I mean, we want them to stay. Right. And they are at will.
It'd be my motion to approve the 5% for the attorneys. Does anybody have any objections to that or want to discuss it further?
I second it. So are we voting to accept the budget proposal that Bob has put up here with the exception of our secretary who we've already voted on changing some things? Is that really what the vote is for?
And plus adding that $70,000 to the revenue.
Right, and then approving the percentages that have been approved by Bob, or that have been suggested by Bob at this point?
Yes.
Okay. I think we got a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye.
Opposed? Okay. And Bob, I think we've all expressed in one way or another how much we value you and appreciate you and pretty much everybody else. And I'll just say, when we carry over tens of thousands of dollars every year, particularly in the face of the budgets we've had in the last several years, that in and of itself is its weight in gold or worth certainly its value. And I think that proves Bob's value. We all appreciate you, Bob. And please extend that to everybody else who works with us also.
Well, thank you. I'll second that. And Stu, I know, I'm sorry to keep saying this. I just can't express enough how much we appreciate this new administration at the agent's office. We have felt just incredible support from them. And that has really made a huge difference in our working environment and our morale. Thank you to Stu and Derek and everybody.
Amen.
Well, we appreciate the work you do. Thank you.
Stu, if you could also, I don't know if you ever get two seconds with Derek, and I don't know if I've told you this, but our Utah Prosecution Council is very realistically and literally nationally recognized as one of the finest agency of its kind. So, again, we appreciate that and what you and Derek do for us.
Thank you. Motion to adjourn? So moved. All right, Stephen, second? Second.
Second. Who was that? Jeff?
Jeff.
Okay. All opposed or all in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you.
Thanks, everybody. We'll see you soon.
Thank you. All right.
We'll see you. Thank you, Bob. Bye.