The Jefferson City Council said it did not fund merit-pay raises within its budget for the fiscal year ending in 2022, but that may not stop one department from continuing to implement such raises.
The Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department has offered these raises in recent years, because the city charter allows the Parks Commission to use its funds as it wishes.
The dispute between the council and Parks continues tension that has been ongoing.
The conflict over how it uses revenue led to discussions Monday about re-examining the City Charter and modifying a portion dealing with the Parks Commission' authority.
City Administrator Steve Crowell asked the council what its direction for all city departments is regarding pay merit increases in addition to across-the-board salary or wage increases.
Parks has given merit-based pay increases in recent years when other departments haven't received any.
While Crowell has final say for all other departments, city statutes give the parks director authority to give out raises within the department.
Crowell said his question isn't about a specific department or the funding to offer pay-for-performance raises, but rather he wants direction regarding the policy within the city as a whole.
Pay-for-performance or merit-based raises come as a result of annual supervisor evaluations around the person's hiring anniversary, Human Resources Director Gail Strope said. How an employee scores would determine how much of a raise he or she would receive.
City Council members voted 9-1 Monday that pay-for- performance raises were not built into the budget and should not be given out in the current budget cycle.
However, the statement is only a recommendation to the Parks Commission, which controls the department's budget.
Parks Director Todd Spalding declined to comment and was not in attendance at Monday's meeting.
Essentially, the disconnect comes from different interpretations of the employee manual.
According to the section of the employee manual about merit and career development, "Merit salary increases and merit bonuses shall be made to full-time and part-time with benefit employees, not covered by a work agreement, only in accordance with this policy and shall be further limited to the funds available and budgeted for such advancements."
Crowell interprets it to mean the funding needs to be specifically stated to be for a pay-for-performance program, but Spalding interprets it to mean he can use unused funds in the personnel budget to give raises.
Council members disagree on whether the city should use merit-based pay raises to encourage a strong work ethic but did agree the program wasn't funded this year.
It has been in the past, but not in more than a decade because of budget shortfalls in the mid-2000s.
Strope said, when it was funded, the program wasn't a separate line item, but grouped in with the personnel budget for each department.
However, it is still in the city's employee manual and department heads still conduct annual performance reviews.
Ward 5 Councilman Jon Hensley said he understands the question of fairness for all city employees and wants everybody to have the same opportunities but also doesn't see a policy violation in what's been done.
"That department proposed a budget that included personnel services," he said. "Whether they had a separate line item or not, it's my understanding that's where (the funds) are drawn. The general fund budgets, my understanding is we did not have budgets proposed to us, and haven't for years, that would have included additional funding for this purpose."
Hensley also pointed out there wasn't a request submitted to start funding the program again this year or since he joined City Council in 2018.
Crowell said there will be for the 2023 budget.
Ward 2 Councilman Mike Lester agreed with Crowell's interpretation that the program needs specific funding to be used, and that funding wasn't given in the budget-making process.
Likewise, Ward 4 Councilman Ron Fitzwater said it's inappropriate all city employees don't have the same opportunities.
"I don't think we put money into any of the budgets to do that," he said. "I think we argued what we could do and the recommendation came to us at 3 percent (cost of living increase) ... and the council adopted that, but we did not put in additional dollars."
Ward 3 Councilman Scott Spencer said they shouldn't conduct the reviews if they aren't used for anything.
Spencer also said he doesn't agree with a pay-for-performance mentality because of past experiences when it was in place and he worked for the Jefferson City Fire Department.
"I have been the personal recipient of an unfair merit program," he said. "I had met and exceeded all expectations for two years. They kicked it back and said 'we can't accept that. We need a lower evaluation.' I just don't agree with that."
While the council stated it did not intend to fund any merit-based increases, the power to authorize them for the parks department ultimately lies with the director and Parks Commission.
Per the city charter, the Parks Commission has "exclusive control of the expenditures of all money collected for and deposited to, or appropriated to the credit of the park fund."
Since the personnel costs for the Parks Department come out of the park fund, the commission oversees how that is used.
Essentially, the Parks Commission can disagree with the City Council's recommendation and authorize staff to continue operating as it has been.
Ward 3 Councilwoman Erin Wiseman pointed out that because of that section of the charter, the council's discussion could mean nothing.
"It seems like the real next step is getting the charter committee back in here," she said. "That seems to be where the discussion needs to go next, not here because either they have the ability to do that or they don't have the ability to do something separate than the city. I think the people can vote about that."
There are two ways to change the city charter, both of which involve residents of Jefferson City eventually voting on the modifications.
City Attorney Ryan Moehlman said the City Council could vote to put a question on the ballot to change charter language or a charter committee could be elected and put the question forward.
Last time the city changed its charter, in 2020, an advisory board studied the charter and made recommendations to the City Council, which then put it on the ballot.
Spencer has in the past brought up changing the charter and did so again Monday.
"It's important the council doesn't lose sight of the importance of the responsibility of having control over the costs in these budgets," he said. "It really ties into the bigger concern that I've shared numerous times ... there are issues within the charter as it relates to Parks and Rec. Sooner or later, it's going to have to be resolved and this is an issue that ties right into that."
For the time being, Hensley said, the charter has two systems set up and the process for changing that isn't in the council chambers.
"I'd like everyone to do things in the same manner," he said. "The charter makes an exception to that, that I don't think anyone denies here. The idea of tailoring the personnel manual to require a separate line item for this particular purpose, I think is a step in the right direction. But if we're just going to say, 'Hey, we think this. We think everyone should do this the same way,' we're just ignoring what the charter says, and we all know what it says."