Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trumbull County commissioners debate ending automatic "me‑too" raises for non‑bargaining staff
Summary
Commissioners discussed rescinding a decades‑old “me‑too” pay resolution that ties non‑bargaining raises to collective‑bargaining outcomes, proposing to shift raise decisions to individual elected officials and require performance evaluations; supporters argued budget relief, opponents warned of morale and retention risks.
Commissioner Tony Bernard and other commissioners opened an extended debate March 17 about removing or revising a long‑standing “me‑too” pay policy that automatically ties non‑bargaining staff increases to union contract raises.
Bernard said the resolution, adopted in 1994, “creates a blank checkbook” that risks budget strain and urged that each elected official should manage raises within their own budgets. Sher Taylor of the commissioners’ office said replacing the automatic increases would place responsibility with department heads and elected officials to evaluate performance and live within appropriations.
Human resources official Alex Jones Bush warned the board that changes touch on negotiation strategy and legal processes, saying some bargaining outcomes are subject to fact‑finding or arbitration. Alex added commissioners must decide what would replace the automatic adjustment and requested time to prepare options, including performance evaluations and alternative pay‑increase formulas.
Opponents said freezing or rolling back automatic increases could harm long‑time employees and make retention harder. One commissioner noted employees had forgone raises in previous years during budget strain and cautioned that a sudden elimination could be politically and operationally difficult.
The board discussed concrete options: freezing increases, adopting a smaller annual cost‑of‑living adjustment tied to evaluations, or allowing department heads to award merit increases within existing budgets. Staff cautioned that savings would vary by department because many offices (e.g., human resources, sanitary engineer) use non‑general or dedicated funds.
The commissioners agreed to a five‑month review before the August 1 effective date cited in current materials, tasking HR to provide cost estimates, a draft replacement resolution, and evaluation templates for department‑level implementation.
The discussion closed with commissioners acknowledging the tradeoffs between fiscal restraint and staff morale; no formal vote was recorded during the workshop.
