Washington County salary commission reviews comparator methods, schedules interviews with commissioners

The Washington County Salary Commission on May 6 reviewed prior salary-commission reports and external comparator data, clarified that its charter and bylaws limit the commission to setting base salaries only, and agreed to interview county elected officials before finalizing recommendations.

Mary Rowe, a former Multnomah County human-resources director invited as a resource, walked commissioners through how Multnomah’s commission produced a narrative-style report and how it handled comparators and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). “In that report, you will see that, their county salary commission is charged with coming up with the salaries for all the elected officials,” Rowe said, drawing a contrast with Washington County’s narrower scope.

The commission discussed several technical issues that will shape its recommendation: whether to use internal county positions or external counties/cities as comparators; how to treat outliers such as counties that list part-time roles; whether to apply geographic cost-of-living adjustments; and whether stipends or reimbursements (for car, phone, etc.) shown in some comparator tables should be treated as part of base salary.

Adriana Ortega, legal adviser from the Washington County counsel’s office, reminded commissioners of the legal scope of the work. “According to the purpose of the bylaws, this the commission sets the salary. So that is all that is defined and and noted on there,” Ortega said. Commission members asked HR about the source and timing of the external data; staff reported it was current to July 2024.

Commissioners and staff also discussed how past panels handled COLA. Catherine Harrington, chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners, joined the meeting to comment and to answer one specific procedural question that commissioners had posed. “I am the elected chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners,” Harrington said, then explained the 2023 budget-year decision in which some executive-level employees chose not to take COLA and that, in the commission’s case, that had affected how adjustments were phased across two fiscal years.

Commission members pressed HR to clarify an “additional adjusted” column that appears in the comparator tables; staff said the classification-and-compensation team had rebuilt past tables and that the commission should verify whether those additional amounts are stipends or part of salary. The panel tasked staff to obtain a clearer breakdown from HR and report back.

On process, the commission agreed to interview the county chair and each commissioner as part of fact-finding before making a recommendation. Commissioners discussed formats and timing: commissioners proposed brief, individual interviews with each county commissioner and the county chair, aiming for roughly 7–10 minutes of prepared remarks and a few minutes of follow-up questions for each person. The commission discussed holding all interviews at a single meeting (staggered to avoid creating a quorum of the county board) and tentatively targeted later May dates so the commission can meet its own bylaw timetable for producing recommendations.

Members divided tasking for follow-up work: two commissioners volunteered to review external comparators, two to review internal comparators, and two to draft a recommended report template. The commission also agreed to circulate proposed interview questions and to cover those questions at a short preparatory meeting before the interviews.

During public comment, Chair Harrington urged the commission to avoid rushing the review and said heavy budget workloads make short-notice interviews difficult; she also reiterated that the commission’s charter limits its charge to setting base salaries. Commissioner Trace (attending) emphasized that the commission should consider the commissioners’ role on Clean Water Services’ board of directors when evaluating scope and workload. Harrington also noted that statutory rules governing special-district boards (cited in the meeting as ORS chapter 451) can affect allowable compensation for some boards.

Next steps: staff will clarify the comparator tables (specifically whether the additional adjustments in some tables are stipends or part of salary), circulate a draft set of interview questions to the commission, and work with commissioners’ staff to schedule brief, staggered interviews with the county chair and each commissioner within the timeline the bylaws require.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the minutes of its previous meeting by voice vote (recorded in the minutes as 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain). A motion to adjourn at the end of the meeting carried with no objections recorded in the transcript.