Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay And Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects motion to reconsider wage study; members cite missing private-sector data
Summary
The Superior Common Council voted down a motion to reconsider earlier action on the city wage/pay study after members said private‑sector comparables were missing; the motion failed on a roll call vote.
The Superior Common Council on March 3 voted down a motion to reconsider action on the city’s wage (pay) study, after several council members said critical private‑sector comparables were not yet available.
Councilors voted on a motion to reconsider the prior council action that had tabled consideration of the pay plan to a later date. The motion would have opened the matter for possible scheduling on March 17 so the council could consider current comparables earlier than previously planned.
The council’s procedural advisor clarified the scope of the vote before the roll call, saying the council was voting only on whether to reconsider the prior motion; any scheduling or substantive change would require a separate vote if the reconsideration passed. A second councilor also noted that data available for a March 17 discussion would be limited to city comparables and would not include private‑sector data.
In the roll call that followed, three councilors voted yes and six voted no, so the motion to reconsider failed. Recorded votes in the transcript include: Councilor Bender — yes; Councilor McDonald — yes; Councilor Dennis Dahlberg — yes; Councilor Sweet — no; Councilor Mazzallia — no; Councilor Finsulin — no; Councilor Herrick — no; Councilor Esther Dahlberg — no. One councilor stated on the record that they would vote no because they were “still a little confused” about what materials would be available if the matter were moved up; that speaker did not give a name in the transcript.
Councilors and staff repeatedly emphasized that the additional private‑sector comparables had been a reason for returning the wage study to a later date at the prior meeting; several councilors said they were unwilling to consider the matter without that private‑sector information. After the failed motion the meeting proceeded to the consent agenda.
The council did not adopt any new schedule on the wage study during the March 3 meeting; the earlier action to table the pay plan to a later date remains in effect unless the council brings the item back by a subsequent motion.
