City councilors have questions on propriety of $400K in raises

Anger lingers over how pay hikes were quietly authorized by city management

The city Finance Committee on Monday night made clear that the controversy over $400,000 in temporary raises that city management granted to select municipal employees is not yet through, saying frustration remained potent both inside and outside City Hall — and on the City Council, too.

In a frank 45-minute discussion, city councilors expressed lingering displeasure over how the raises were quietly authorized last month and what they said were outstanding questions about the propriety of the 10- or 15-percent pay hikes for 37 employees involved with a software modernization project, where the money came from and the disconcerting potential for “other surprises,” as Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth put it.

Although no formal action was taken, the councilors’ talk signaled they will seek further clarity from city management on the financials of the multimillion-dollar software project — possibly in a public setting and possibly as early as next week as budget hearings get underway.

“At the very least we need to look closely at the budget for this program,” Councilor Mike Harris said of the modernization project, which includes a contingency fund from which the pay hikes were funded. “How it breaks down, what it’s been spent against, what the contingency fund is for.”

“In terms of the 37 [employees who received temporary raises], I don’t know,” Harris added. “I don’t have a good solution on that. All I’m saying is: This isn’t over.”

Referring to a closed-door conversation between Councilor Roman “Tiger” Abeyta and Deputy City Manager Renée Martínez, the project manager who requested the raises, Councilor Chris Rivera said, “The public is entitled to those same answers. We haven’t been through that yet.”

Harris, who called for a “public conversation in some form,” added: “I just can’t think of anything good to say about how this was handled. We throw ‘transparency’ around like it’s saran wrap. In this case, it’s aluminum foil.”

Harris and Rivera both said they would suspend the raises if it were their decision to make. Councilor Signe Lindell cautioned against such a move. “I am genuinely worried about us derailing this project,” she said. “I heard a couple of you say, ‘No, no, no one wants to derail it,’ but I have genuine concerns about that.”

“If you wanna talk about derailment,” Harris said, “this incident and set of circumstances goes much further to derail what we’re trying to accomplish than anything else.”

The one-year pay increases were requested and authorized by the deputy city manager and city manager in the days before the election of Mayor Alan Webber last month.

Webber, after learning of the internal rationale for the raises, seemed to ratify management’s decision last week in saying they will be implemented, citing the opinion of an outside consultant who said temporary pay increases are common practice within such software modernization projects.

On Monday night Webber, whose impromptu appearance in the closing moments of the Finance Committee meeting seemed to spur the conversation, told councilors he appreciated their concerns but urged “getting beyond an emotional response to a strategic response.”

“As mayor, the responsibility is on me to look for, going forward, ways to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Webber said. “I’m not sure you can legislate your way forward. I think it has to be managed forward.”

“We haven’t solved it but we’ve grappled with it and gotten to the point where we know what happened and what we want to prevent in the future,” he added. “The conversation is healthy.”

Harris said the question of what city councilors should have been told about the raises, and when, speaks to a larger question about the division of responsibilities between the mayor and eight-member council under the city’s new stronger-mayor system.

“I’m sure you appreciate that this is not a gesture of defiance or anything like that,” Harris told Webber. “… We need to clarify our responsibilities in general and what our current relationship is with the mayor’s office, no matter who sits in that office.”