Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecuting attorney asks commissioners to revisit chief deputy salary; board agrees to schedule reconsideration
Summary
Mason County's prosecuting attorney requested the board reconsider the chief deputy prosecutor's salary after recent changes and internal comparisons; commissioners agreed to place the item on the Jan. 21 agenda and discussed an effective date of Feb. 1 if adopted.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mason County Prosecuting Attorney (first reference: prosecuting attorney) urged the Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 14 to revisit the recently changed salary for the chief deputy prosecutor, citing internal equity concerns and the need to compare the position to the court commissioner salary.
The prosecuting attorney said the office had not had adequate time to brief commissioners before a December 17 change and contended the county historically uses internal comparables and arbitration data when setting professional salaries. "I do think that the best internal equity comparison in terms of positions, is that of the court commissioner," the prosecuting attorney said, asserting the chief deputy's responsibilities have grown while the court commissioner's duties have been reduced.
Commissioners expressed support for reconsideration and discussed a range (comments referenced 85% of the Superior Court judge salary as a benchmark). At the meeting Chair Mark (county official) and other commissioners agreed to put the item on the Jan. 21 agenda. The board discussed an effective date of Feb. 1 for any salary adjustment should it be adopted; commissioners asked for the item to be briefed and placed on the next regular agenda so a formal decision could be made with full documentation.
No final salary change was adopted at the Jan. 14 session; commissioners directed staff to schedule the matter for formal consideration on Jan. 21 and indicated an effective date of Feb. 1 would be acceptable if the board approves an adjustment at that later meeting.

