Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission splits on pay, salary limits and reimbursements for county officials and charter commissioners
Summary
The commission advanced a charter amendment limiting salaries for county officials but rejected related measures to change how the charter review commission and other elected officials are paid or reimbursed; votes were split across multiple proposals.
The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission took several separate votes June 11 on measures addressing pay, salary-setting, and reimbursement for elected officials and the county’s Charter Review Commission.
A proposal from Commissioner Andrew Redding to cap certain county officer salaries by tying them to the highest published salaries among charter counties under 2,000,000 population passed by a recorded vote that the clerk summarized as 7 in favor, 6 opposed and 2 abstentions. Redding urged the change as a guardrail against steep increases set by the independent salary commission, saying the county’s salary levels had grown “out of line” with comparable counties.
The commission considered several companion measures addressing pay and compensation for elected roles:
- Amendment 11, from Commissioner Maya Morales, would have allowed future charter review commissioners to receive salary for their service; that motion failed on the roll call, recorded as 12 to 3 against. Morales argued paying commissioners would improve access to service and align with Washington’s recent Equal Pay and Opportunity Act.
- Amendment 15, proposed by Commissioner John Mechler and intended as a values statement directing the salary commission to ensure pay is “fair, modest, and reflective” of the time commitment, failed 8-6 with one abstention.
- Amendment 16, which would have authorized travel and other reimbursements for charter review commissioners (and was amended on the floor to substitute the word “salary” for the word “compensation” in one sentence), passed the interim wording change by 13–1 with one abstention. However, the commission later voted on the final referral and the motion to send proposed amendment 16 as amended to the ballot failed 8–7 with one commissioner excused.
During debate, commissioners and members of the public raised practical questions about implementation. Commissioner Morales asked whether salary or part‑time/prorated language would force full-time benefit packages; sponsors said the salary commission would interpret prorating and benefit thresholds under applicable law. Commissioner John Mechler warned that changing caps on base salary without addressing total compensation (health insurance, deferred compensation, cash-outs for unused leave) could leave a path for offsets through benefits.
Public comments included an anonymous letter from county employees (read into the record by Commissioner Redding) urging scrutiny of top-level pay and arguing that past increases had strained other department budgets. Commissioners questioned the letter’s anonymity but noted similar workplace concerns had been raised in other forums.
No immediate ordinance or administrative change was enacted; the commission referred Redding’s salary-cap amendment to voters but did not advance the other compensation items at this meeting.
The votes split along differing views about fiscal restraint, equity, and practicality of implementing pay changes through charter amendment versus relying on the existing independent salary commission.
