Harp circumvented the proper process in raising director of youth services pay

No matter how you look at it, the math does not add up.

Since 2015, the salary of the city’s director of youth services has been listed on the city’s budget as $85,000.

But we now know that is not true — and alders are demanding an explanation from Mayor Toni Harp. They have good reason. The Board of Alders thought $85,000 a year plus benefits was a fair salary and in a tight 2015 budget year, rejected a request by Harp to add another $20,000 to Youth Services Director Jason Bartlett’s annual salary.

But apparently, $85,000 a year — in a city where the median income is $37,192 — isn’t enough, at least to Harp.

Despite the alders rejections, Harp backdoored the $20,000 salary hike through the Board of Education in August 2015, and made the raise retroactive to July 2015.

Her reasoning was that Bartlett was shouldering extra responsibilities as her liaison to the board.

Harp was president of the school board from September 2015 to January 2017.

According to Budget Director Joe Clerkin, Harp had an arrangement with thenSuperintendent of Schools Garth Harries that the BOE would cover the extra $20,000.

But Clerkin said the $20,000 never came from the school board in fiscal 201516, nor has it been sent to the budget office for the current fiscal year. So, what’s going on? We now know the youth division ran a $19,473 deficit, which was paid when the city transferred $5.9 million in surplus money to cover all department deficits in order to end the year with a balanced budget.

But there is more to be concerned about here than whether the city’s youth director should earn six figures.

Harp made some questionable decisions that don’t exactly pass the smell test.

The alders contend that both the raises and an arrangement for payment to cover Bartlett’s salary from both the city and the school board are charter violations. They make a good case. They cite Section 2-386 of the charter, which states that aldermanic prior approval is needed for a budget transfer in order “to increase the total annual salary estimate included in an appropriation for any reason.”

They also cite Section 14, which covers conflict of interest and the code of ethics and says “holding a dual position is prohibited.”

It goes on to say: “No person shall receive compensation for service on more than one board or commission or for more than one position in the city government.”

We were under the impression that New Haven, like many other cities and towns in Connecticut, was towing the line on municipal salaries and pay raises, which many people already think are out of line.

But it seems that is not the picture emerging here.

Bartlett defends his salary, saying he has “brought $1 million from the Burn (public safety) grant; hundreds of thousands of extra dollars for youths from the state of Connecticut and from private foundations and also tripled the capacity of what we have done within the department.”

But exactly how much should the city’s youth director earns annually isn’t what is dividing the alders and Harp.

It comes down to a simple question: who or what has the final word when it comes to doling out taxpayers’ dollars — Harp or the city’s charter?

We think Harp should have a some leeway and flexibility in her position as leader of the Elm City.

But one of the responsibilities of the alders is to make sure the administration is being held accountable to the charter.

Bartlett’s salary remains on the books at $85,000 — an ongoing falsehood.

He is being paid $105,000 a year — again, a salary that was rejected by alders.

Harp circumvented the proper process in a bid to bypass them.

We wish there was another reasonable explanation, but in this case, there isn’t another one that rings true.