Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Official Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney says board failed to document elected-official pay decision; supervisors approve 3.25% increase
Summary
The board approved a 3.25% pay increase for elected officials but the county attorney warned the board did not follow new statutory documentation requirements, leaving the county exposed to legal challenge unless corrected in future cycles.
The Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an across‑the‑board 3.25% compensation increase for elected officials but drew a pointed legal warning from County Attorney Matt Wilbur, who said the board did not satisfy the statute’s new documentation requirements when it assumed compensation‑board duties.
Wilbur told the board that while he did not object to the amount of the increase, he had expected to be consulted and that the board’s written record did not reflect the comparisons the statute now requires. He cited the statute’s instruction that the compensation decision should document considerations such as comparable salaries in other counties, other states, private sector and federal comparisons, and specific guidance for sheriff salaries relative to law‑enforcement benchmarks. “If a single elected official in this room decided to file a lawsuit against this board of supervisors … I would have no defense for you,” Wilbur said, adding he would be prepared to sue to force compliance next year if the board failed again.
Supervisors defended their action as a routine compensation decision that used available salary‑survey data (ISAC survey) and the county’s fiscal constraints. Several elected officials present, including the county sheriff, said they accepted the increase but objected to the process, asking that future actions include direct consultation and documented comparisons.
The board approved Resolution 16‑2025 — the formal compensation recommendation for elected officials for fiscal year 2025–26 — by roll call vote. Later in the meeting, the board considered Resolution 17‑2025, to increase non‑union employee wages by 3.25% (implemented via a combination of step/grade movement and step increases). Supervisors decided to table that non‑union wage resolution to refine language about step/grade adjustments and to allow HR to prepare precise implementation language; the postponement was moved and seconded and set for consideration at a future meeting.
Why it matters: Statutory procedure governs how elected‑official compensation is set when the board assumes those duties. Legal exposure for failing to document the board’s comparative analysis could invite litigation or directive to redo decisions if challenged.
What’s next: County Attorney Matt Wilbur offered to help prepare a documented template and comparisons for future compensation decisions; supervisors agreed to correct the documentation process going forward and to work with HR and staff to ensure compliance.
Ending: Supervisors approved the compensation increases while acknowledging they need to improve the written record to satisfy recent statutory changes.
