Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines council approves personnel committee pay package after debate over retention bonuses
Summary
After a lengthy debate about retention bonuses versus longevity pay, the Des Moines City Council approved the personnel committee's recommended compensation for the council's direct reports, passing the measure 5–2 and directing staff to return with more detailed longevity/retention numbers at the next review.
The Des Moines City Council on July 13 approved the personnel committee's annual review and recommended compensation package for the council's direct reports after a heated discussion about retention bonuses.
Councilman Mandelbaum said he had not seen enough information distinguishing retention bonuses from longevity pay and asked to delay the decision to allow staff to provide clearer numbers. "I'd prefer to be able to vote for this to wait one more council session so that we can get some of that longevity versus retention and have a discussion on that," he said.
Another council member opposed the package on budgetary grounds, citing specific dollar amounts for retention bonuses. "The retention bonus alone is almost $22,000 for the city manager, 17,000 for the city attorney," the council member said, and warned that compounding bonuses and longevity increases could exceed the cost of external hiring over time.
Members who supported the package said competitive pay is necessary to retain experienced leadership. "This is the most important position in the city," one supporter said, noting the cost and difficulty of recruiting senior executives.
After discussion, the council moved and seconded the personnel committee recommendation and voted to approve it; the clerk recorded the tally as 5 yes, 2 no. Council direction included returning to the personnel review process with more precise comparisons of longevity pay versus retention bonuses at the next scheduled review period.
The council's debate included repeated requests for clearer, final numbers on total costs and on how longevity and retention interact with IPERS and other benefits. The personnel committee agreed to supply those figures at the next review cycle.
