WEBVTT 00:00:00.386 --> 00:00:09.320 - This is a special full committee meeting, April 10, 8.33 a.m. Hopi-Sasker, District 3. McClary, at large. 00:00:09.320 --> 00:00:17.832 - Isabel P. Mott-Smith, District 4. Gretchen. Oh, sorry, Gretchen. Thank you, Mayor. Pauline Lines and 00:00:17.832 --> 00:00:24.574 - Deputy Clark. Thank you. So, gender review and approval. Yes, Jeff is not here. 00:00:24.738 --> 00:00:31.274 - And this is why the first thing is review of controller reports. So part of that is recording questions 00:00:31.274 --> 00:00:37.685 - for Jeff to be able to answer next time. But similarly, if there are reports that are not included in 00:00:37.685 --> 00:00:44.222 - here. So essentially, you know how we've been going back and forth between council stuff and controller 00:00:44.222 --> 00:00:50.507 - stuff. This was supposed to be a controller meeting. As he's not here, we essentially flipped that. 00:00:50.507 --> 00:00:52.958 - And so next time, there will be a more 00:00:53.346 --> 00:00:59.248 - have complete conversation around the reports that he submitted and if there's any other additional 00:00:59.248 --> 00:01:05.209 - reports. So that's the first agenda item. That's also why I don't have any public comment related to 00:01:05.209 --> 00:01:11.111 - that agenda item. He's not here. So I didn't think people would comment on this next time. And then 00:01:11.111 --> 00:01:17.132 - I figured we could take this opportunity to look at that elected official salary framework stuff that 00:01:17.132 --> 00:01:21.086 - we kind of talked about last time and there was general agreement. 00:01:21.538 --> 00:01:28.369 - So to look at that again, to modify it, to see if we can do something with that. Any notes? So there 00:01:28.369 --> 00:01:35.334 - is public comment related to that agenda item. Any notes related to budget calendar? Because I updated 00:01:35.334 --> 00:01:42.165 - a couple things based on the elected official salary stuff, and then a term on it. So do you want to 00:01:42.165 --> 00:01:44.126 - move approval of agenda? OK. 00:01:44.610 --> 00:01:51.914 - All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Great. Thank you. So these controller reports, I figured 00:01:51.914 --> 00:01:58.793 - the easiest thing to do would just be to kind of scroll through them. And they're in the packet. 00:01:58.793 --> 00:02:05.884 - I don't know. Actually, I didn't join the Zoom. I don't know if I should. That would be helpful for 00:02:05.884 --> 00:02:14.110 - anybody to have them on screen. Remember the public do we have? We do have several participants up there, don't we? 00:02:20.994 --> 00:02:29.172 - I should start doing the Zoom so that, yeah, it may work on that. I should have been working on that 00:02:29.172 --> 00:02:37.594 - while I was waiting, and why? Can I ask you a question? Yes. Were these quarterly expenditure or budget 00:02:37.594 --> 00:02:45.691 - performance reports as it's described shared with the fiscal committee last year? No. Because these 00:02:45.691 --> 00:02:48.606 - are new to me, and I appreciate it. 00:02:49.122 --> 00:02:56.509 - It's certainly something that's come up in angle, but it's like before is sometimes a rather large delta 00:02:56.509 --> 00:03:03.686 - between what's budgeted and spent. I don't think we're thinking on a routine basis. I'm trying to dig 00:03:03.686 --> 00:03:11.144 - into that, but this makes it way, way easier to see you understand and direct. I'm not recording anymore. 00:03:11.144 --> 00:03:16.350 - Probably can't talk about this one. Yeah. These are, you should probably, 00:03:18.146 --> 00:03:28.831 - Make sure that we're aware of like, obviously they can look in the fiscal committee packet, but just 00:03:28.831 --> 00:03:39.621 - like a heads up. Yeah. Yeah. These reports are in our packet. If you're interested, take a look. Good 00:03:39.621 --> 00:03:44.382 - question. All right. I'm now in the meeting. 00:04:07.362 --> 00:04:24.437 - Where did my screen share go? All right. And I hope this is the right window. Oh dear. No, this is not 00:04:24.437 --> 00:04:35.710 - the right window. Sorry. We really have too many windows open here. 00:04:55.330 --> 00:05:04.517 - Because some of these are probably cyclical like you see, you know, 2% has been expended because this 00:05:04.517 --> 00:05:13.704 - thing happens in June or whatever. Yes. And so that's part of what, you know, we can make sure to ask 00:05:13.704 --> 00:05:21.630 - him to make sure that this is there. So we have our first, yeah, is budget performance. 00:05:21.922 --> 00:05:28.965 - One of the things that John might do is we sat down last week and he was like, how specific do you want 00:05:28.965 --> 00:05:35.805 - these? And so I did sort of like a mid level of each of the funds, but he could break this down even 00:05:35.805 --> 00:05:42.781 - further in terms of say under animal shelter, all of the different, you know, personnel expenses, this 00:05:42.781 --> 00:05:49.621 - expense, that expense. Did he do that somewhere in the end? That's great. And so I thought that this 00:05:49.621 --> 00:05:50.366 - first one, 00:05:51.394 --> 00:05:59.049 - was specific enough for our purposes. Actually, I guess that's the thing. I hadn't looked at these closely 00:05:59.049 --> 00:06:06.490 - since we had that discussion. And I said, if it's easy for you to do a second one that is more specific 00:06:06.490 --> 00:06:14.288 - in case people want to see it, go ahead and do it. Because of course, all of this has to be made accessible. 00:06:14.288 --> 00:06:19.582 - And so it's this time to make sure that he can put all of these together. 00:06:20.002 --> 00:06:26.824 - And so he did. So if we have feedback for him on whether we want to see all of these splits or not, 00:06:26.824 --> 00:06:33.713 - that would be helpful. Or whether we want to see, you know, this is a quarterly report, right? So do 00:06:33.713 --> 00:06:40.194 - you want to see this kind of split every quarter? Do you want to do it, you know, once a year, 00:06:40.194 --> 00:06:47.902 - twice a year? What do we want? And then, so that one is very, very long, kind of scrolling through this quickly. 00:06:48.226 --> 00:06:57.223 - for you folks online, it's of course available in the packet from this meeting. And of course it's long 00:06:57.223 --> 00:07:06.220 - because we have a lot of funds and a lot of detail in each of those funds. And then we're getting down, 00:07:06.220 --> 00:07:15.217 - actually there should be one more different one that's not budget performance somewhere. Yeah, the next 00:07:15.217 --> 00:07:17.726 - one is the revenue overview. 00:07:17.954 --> 00:07:27.862 - Yeah. And he thought about putting transfers in and did not have the time to get a report on transfers. 00:07:27.862 --> 00:07:37.674 - But that is one that I think, Matt, you might have mentioned being interested in that. I think he also 00:07:37.674 --> 00:07:47.486 - said there were not many transfers that had happened yet this year. So it would be very unusual. Yeah. 00:07:47.682 --> 00:07:55.744 - Um, there is this line inter-governmental, which, yeah. Oh, these are revenues though. Yeah, these are 00:07:55.744 --> 00:08:03.649 - revenues. So this is the revenue performance run. So I think that that means that we just have those 00:08:03.649 --> 00:08:11.554 - three in here. Well, revenue performance details in this report. Okay. And so one of the things that 00:08:11.554 --> 00:08:16.094 - he did mention, of course, is that, you know, we haven't, 00:08:16.322 --> 00:08:26.868 - actually gotten our tax, like property tax this year. Yeah. And then there's revenue performance. It's 00:08:26.868 --> 00:08:37.925 - a little bit more in depth. So Isabella, you mentioned that you have questions for him. Are there questions 00:08:37.925 --> 00:08:43.454 - that would be good to share right now, and then I can 00:08:43.938 --> 00:08:52.065 - let him know about or are the questions that should it's just easier to put them on the spot for next 00:08:52.065 --> 00:09:00.272 - time like what did you want to know oh actually i was thinking of questions not related to this report 00:09:00.272 --> 00:09:08.399 - but i do have a couple of questions here okay um so i see the controller's office budget uh under the 00:09:08.399 --> 00:09:12.702 - general fund has been extended to 64 percent and then 00:09:13.346 --> 00:09:21.725 - When I dig in, it looks like a lot of that is, like the entire amount that's budgeted for inter-fund 00:09:21.725 --> 00:09:30.104 - transfers under the controller's office has been done. So I guess I just wanted to review what those 00:09:30.104 --> 00:09:38.068 - are. Okay. So I'm going to put that up. Obviously they happen in the first quarter of the year. 00:09:38.068 --> 00:09:43.294 - It's all done. All right. So that's under controller's office. 00:09:43.938 --> 00:09:52.519 - So you want to review the inter-fond transfers. Yeah. All right. Other questions that we can pass it, 00:09:52.519 --> 00:10:01.015 - Jeff, in terms of them, like? Things to be discussing within the next meeting, but if there's things 00:10:01.015 --> 00:10:09.680 - to tee up. Yeah, if there's things to tee up, or similarly, if you feel like there's something missing 00:10:09.680 --> 00:10:10.942 - that you want, 00:10:15.042 --> 00:10:22.607 - Well, I think, oh, I'm starting to go in my bathroom. I'm very sleepy. Yeah, I want to just hear the 00:10:22.607 --> 00:10:30.322 - presentation more to make sure I understand the context of all parts. But yeah, I think this is really 00:10:30.322 --> 00:10:38.187 - helpful in getting us closer to kind of having a full picture of revenue for bonds to expenditure, which 00:10:38.187 --> 00:10:44.254 - we've kind of just never had. Yeah. And I think the inter-bond transfer piece is 00:10:44.674 --> 00:10:52.259 - important part of that because we do a fair amount of that. So you feel that it's not like revenue sources 00:10:52.259 --> 00:10:59.561 - are just starting to respond and staying there and then being spent. So to fully understand, sometimes 00:10:59.561 --> 00:11:06.721 - that's helpful. I think the detail is really, really nice. Not necessarily review every single line, 00:11:06.721 --> 00:11:14.590 - but when you have a question about a certain substantive area or a particular department's budget coordinates, 00:11:15.138 --> 00:11:21.819 - summary, you can dig in. So I found that helpful in preliminary review. I don't want it to be important, 00:11:21.819 --> 00:11:28.436 - but I mean, it's quarterly, and it is something that we need to automate to make, you know, a generated 00:11:28.436 --> 00:11:34.799 - report and meet accessibility requirements or to be delegated if it's, you know, due time consuming 00:11:34.799 --> 00:11:41.226 - for the enroller itself. Like, I think that's, I think, yeah. When I, when I spoke to them about it, 00:11:41.226 --> 00:11:43.198 - it was like, it was more like, 00:11:43.490 --> 00:11:50.213 - He wasn't sure how long it was going to take. Yeah, that's where we were still in the preliminary. But 00:11:50.213 --> 00:11:57.066 - I think he included it, so it might have been fine. But so he would like that detail every time. I think 00:11:57.066 --> 00:12:03.855 - having this detail accordingly makes this be incredibly valuable for us and for the council. Wonderful. 00:12:03.855 --> 00:12:10.578 - Isabelle, what were you going to say? Another one I noticed was already significantly expanded. It was 00:12:10.578 --> 00:12:12.862 - under the lit economic development 00:12:12.962 --> 00:12:20.906 - the ESD department has already spent 53%. And then when I drill down on that, it looks like 00:12:20.906 --> 00:12:29.974 - their organizational support line is already 89% spent. So out of a $4.4 million budget, they've already 00:12:29.974 --> 00:12:37.918 - spent $3.9 million. So I'd like to know more about that. And of course, that's another one. 00:12:39.522 --> 00:12:49.070 - Oh, is that the line that they used to say? Okay, thank you. And it's questions like that that Jeff 00:12:49.070 --> 00:12:58.617 - wouldn't necessarily know. It's a miracle that I know the answer to that. Yeah, because all he does 00:12:58.617 --> 00:13:09.406 - is the numbers and so he wouldn't necessarily know those things. So that's one of the reasons. And then overall, 00:13:10.466 --> 00:13:18.689 - I'd like to know, and maybe I should do this, but how did the adopted budget become the amended budget? 00:13:18.689 --> 00:13:26.833 - Like, when did we amend it? It's encumbrances. So that's what amends it. So if you have money that you 00:13:26.833 --> 00:13:34.898 - didn't spend in the previous year that you have to encumber for the next year, that gets added to the 00:13:34.898 --> 00:13:37.982 - budget, and that's the amended budget. 00:13:39.906 --> 00:13:46.748 - And it is confusing sometimes. I had to freak out. For example, yesterday I was looking at our phone 00:13:46.748 --> 00:13:53.522 - line. I was like, why is our phone line so far ahead? And it's because the PO for the entire amount 00:13:53.522 --> 00:14:00.297 - that we'll pay for the phone is already open. So even though we haven't incurred all that and spent 00:14:00.297 --> 00:14:07.274 - all that yet, actually, since the months haven't happened, the PO is open. And so it shows this hasn't 00:14:07.274 --> 00:14:09.374 - been spent in new world terms. 00:14:11.458 --> 00:14:21.872 - Great, so we have to get some questions answered. I mean, very basic. Right. And do a counseling 101, 00:14:21.872 --> 00:14:32.082 - and that's about it. Well, I had a question. Which fund is being used to pay FLOG? I think it would 00:14:32.082 --> 00:14:38.718 - probably either be ESLIT or general fund. I don't know that each 00:14:39.810 --> 00:14:48.375 - each line for each invoice is attributed to a fund in these reports. You'd have to look that up individually. 00:14:48.375 --> 00:14:56.161 - So that would be a question outside of the scope of a report, but you could ask Jeff and he can put 00:14:56.161 --> 00:15:04.025 - that up for you. I have a non-related question for Jeff, which maybe Gretchen could help with. We're 00:15:04.025 --> 00:15:09.086 - done with this, but maybe we can do more. Are we done with this? 00:15:10.178 --> 00:15:17.983 - I didn't have public comment on for this one because Jeff wasn't here to like give the full presentation. 00:15:17.983 --> 00:15:25.493 - I would actually move that we accept public comment on this agenda item because I think like we could 00:15:25.493 --> 00:15:33.077 - similar to us asking questions or making comments that we could inform for the conversation. So if you 00:15:33.077 --> 00:15:39.262 - folks may be interested. All right. We can go ahead and amend the agenda right now. 00:15:39.554 --> 00:15:46.214 - So then we want to do public comment before you ask your general question. The question again, the answer. 00:15:46.214 --> 00:15:52.624 - Yeah, because it's, it's not related to the reports. Great. So, is there any numbers of the public who 00:15:52.624 --> 00:15:58.910 - are interested in commentating on those reports? See that Mr. Keough was raised to say, I'm going to 00:15:58.910 --> 00:16:04.574 - stop my screen share. So that then we can, there we go. Mr. Keough, go ahead and go ahead. 00:16:05.410 --> 00:16:11.951 - For lack of a timer, I'm timing on my wrist. So if you try to keep to three minutes, I'll be sure to 00:16:11.951 --> 00:16:18.622 - go ahead and start with your name officially whenever you do. Yes. You hear me? Yes. Good morning. I'm 00:16:18.622 --> 00:16:25.163 - Kevin Keough. As a CPA and internal auditor, I've spent my career writing and analyzing reports. I'm 00:16:25.163 --> 00:16:31.834 - here today because lately, Bloomington's reporting is moving in the wrong direction, from transparency 00:16:31.834 --> 00:16:34.878 - to obfuscation. Bloomington deserves the best. 00:16:35.042 --> 00:16:41.673 - We deserve a city that treats reporting not as a burden to placate the public, but as a fundamental 00:16:41.673 --> 00:16:48.370 - commitment to excellence in public service. Two recent attempts to report to the public show exactly 00:16:48.370 --> 00:16:55.200 - why our current approach is failing us. First, the AFR. Our 2025 annual financial report was due March 00:16:55.200 --> 00:17:01.963 - 1st. The official submitted report date is 3-25-2026. We can debate if it was late or not. But worse, 00:17:01.963 --> 00:17:04.350 - when the public tries to access it, 00:17:04.450 --> 00:17:11.425 - We are no longer provided with a simple downloadable document. We are forced to navigate a complex gated 00:17:11.425 --> 00:17:18.333 - portal, effectively hiding the information behind the technical barrier. This is not transparency. It's 00:17:18.333 --> 00:17:25.043 - a retreat. Second, the politics of paving has reported in the B-Squared Daily Bulletin of April 6th. 00:17:25.043 --> 00:17:31.486 - We see data discrepancies between the State of the City address and internal department reports. 00:17:31.938 --> 00:17:39.277 - Geographic miles versus industry standard lane miles. This isn't just a technicality. It's a failure 00:17:39.277 --> 00:17:46.979 - to provide a reliable, verifiable source of truth. Reliable information adds value. Misinformation breaks 00:17:46.979 --> 00:17:54.464 - trust. Using geographic segments to make an administration look better isn't reporting, it's spin. The 00:17:54.464 --> 00:17:59.550 - solution. I honestly don't understand why we're struggling with this. 00:18:00.034 --> 00:18:06.130 - Why doesn't the city simply adopt best practices for reporting? The Government's Finance Officers 00:18:06.130 --> 00:18:12.412 - Association, the GFOA, has provided a clear roadmap, the distinguished budget presentation criteria, 00:18:12.412 --> 00:18:19.067 - and their financial reporting framework. This isn't reinventing the wheel. It's adopting a proven standard 00:18:19.067 --> 00:18:25.287 - used by high-performing cities across the country to ensure data integrity. I'm asking committee to 00:18:25.287 --> 00:18:26.718 - move the needle today. 00:18:27.298 --> 00:18:33.656 - Stop the backslide. Restore the direct one-click access to our financial reports. No more gated portals. 00:18:33.656 --> 00:18:40.014 - Formalize excellence. Formally adopt the GFOA best practices for both our accounting financial reporting 00:18:40.014 --> 00:18:46.069 - and our budgeting frameworks. End the data spend. It just doesn't work. It only serves to break the 00:18:46.069 --> 00:18:52.426 - trust and confidence of the people you serve. Bloomington is a world-class city. Our financial reporting 00:18:52.426 --> 00:18:55.454 - and budget presentation should be too. Thank you. 00:18:57.026 --> 00:19:13.685 - Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to comment on these reports? I don't 00:19:13.685 --> 00:19:25.726 - see other hands. All right. So bringing that back to the committee then. 00:19:28.866 --> 00:19:38.535 - unless there's other specific mentions of the report as well. What was your question? My question was 00:19:38.535 --> 00:19:48.583 - referring back to our March 13th meeting with Rudy and when we should, or whether this has already begun, 00:19:48.583 --> 00:19:54.366 - the conversations with the county about the MUST task force, 00:19:55.170 --> 00:20:02.021 - to come up with a county-wide rate? The Mayor Jeff and Margie are mad about that and we're going to 00:20:02.021 --> 00:20:08.872 - work until the primary is done so that we know who would actually be in office voting on it and why 00:20:08.872 --> 00:20:15.791 - that would happen. So there's a, we've been talking about it, but there's not an actual step-by-step 00:20:15.791 --> 00:20:22.916 - report immediately. Okay, but the committee has to meet before October 1st. Yes, but because the actual 00:20:22.916 --> 00:20:24.286 - people who would be 00:20:24.738 --> 00:20:34.982 - accountable for the money having. We're going to talk to. We're involving all of the appropriate parties 00:20:34.982 --> 00:20:44.739 - who would be involved in the future as well. Okay. And then also related to the March 13th meeting, 00:20:44.739 --> 00:20:54.398 - was there a written report that really was going to provide to go along with their analysis of the 00:20:55.810 --> 00:21:04.538 - SB1 and party crisis legislation impacts. I think that's a Jeff question. It's easier to use contact. 00:21:04.538 --> 00:21:13.180 - So was there a written report? Yeah. I think he mentioned it, but they were still working on it. And 00:21:13.180 --> 00:21:21.908 - like many other courts, such as the AFR, if it's no longer accessible to the public, we have a little 00:21:21.908 --> 00:21:25.758 - lag in how we can treat that on the website. 00:21:28.098 --> 00:21:34.754 - We can get that to this group since we're trying to make everything accessible. If something cannot 00:21:34.754 --> 00:21:40.877 - be made accessible for a third party, we have some work around us. Okay. So in other words, 00:21:40.877 --> 00:21:47.599 - the administration is working on getting the AFR back on our website in a next fully accessible way. 00:21:47.599 --> 00:21:54.787 - Right now, the step that we're at is removing everything that is not accessible by the April 24th deadline, 00:21:54.787 --> 00:21:56.318 - which is 14 days away. 00:21:56.802 --> 00:22:06.653 - there's a lot to do and it involves much more than just the AFR. So it'll be a minute. Okay. So before 00:22:06.653 --> 00:22:16.217 - we move on from that conversation, it looks like we've got about maybe 25, 30 minutes to talk about 00:22:16.217 --> 00:22:23.390 - the Selected Official Compensation Framework. And I think, I'm sorry that, 00:22:23.714 --> 00:22:30.731 - Dave is not here this morning. He has feelings about this. But I figured to start with, of course, that 00:22:30.731 --> 00:22:37.883 - was also on this committee a couple years ago. We could start by looking at the annual process, honestly, 00:22:37.883 --> 00:22:44.226 - not even regarding principles, which in April says that we validate and update the framework. 00:22:44.226 --> 00:22:51.108 - And it is April, so we are validating and updating the framework at this point. And so at least we're 00:22:51.108 --> 00:22:52.862 - doing that usage from it. 00:22:53.122 --> 00:23:01.224 - A year and a half ago when we did this, we really started trying to very deliberately start from scratch 00:23:01.224 --> 00:23:08.246 - on it without any preconceived notion of anything. We started the conversations around the 00:23:08.246 --> 00:23:16.270 - guiding principles, wanting values to guide how city council makes decisions regarding the compensation 00:23:16.270 --> 00:23:22.366 - and thinking about making sure that that public service was accessible so that 00:23:22.946 --> 00:23:31.034 - community members of all socioeconomic statuses could decide to run, that it was equitable according 00:23:31.034 --> 00:23:39.123 - to respective levels of responsibility and acknowledging the full-time versus part-time nature, that 00:23:39.123 --> 00:23:47.371 - compensation enabled quality community service, that it also enabled informed decision-making in terms 00:23:47.371 --> 00:23:50.174 - of research, et cetera, et cetera. 00:23:50.370 --> 00:23:57.890 - and the whole thing was transparent and documented so that anybody could go like, why did they decide 00:23:57.890 --> 00:24:05.484 - on a salary? Why did they get paid this much? Oh, it's because of this. And so I guess the first time. 00:24:05.484 --> 00:24:12.193 - Sorry, the informed decisions, I thought it was talking about us making informed decisions 00:24:12.193 --> 00:24:19.934 - about compensation. Yeah, so like. So the reason he referred to was to enable the decisions about sound. 00:24:20.418 --> 00:24:26.928 - Not just general. Oh, yeah. I guess in the parent process, in the last one, it's more about ability 00:24:26.928 --> 00:24:33.309 - for understanding how decisions are made on kind of a basic standard. Sorry, I have to interrupt. 00:24:33.309 --> 00:24:40.340 - That's OK. But I figured that the first thing that we could talk about today were those guiding principles. 00:24:40.340 --> 00:24:46.915 - And Noel, do we like those guiding principles? Do we feel like they need amending in some way? Do we 00:24:46.915 --> 00:24:48.478 - want to add more? Yeah. 00:24:52.642 --> 00:25:02.262 - I think my original comment indicates that I find them a bit confusing. All of them or specifically 00:25:02.262 --> 00:25:11.883 - the number four? Well, also number three. Okay. Because I don't, I see it very closely aligned with 00:25:11.883 --> 00:25:20.830 - number one. So level compensation makes elected office attainable for all community members. 00:25:21.666 --> 00:25:30.505 - as far as socioeconomic status. And then compensation enables elected officials to meaningfully engage 00:25:30.505 --> 00:25:39.173 - with and serve the community. Can you explain that difference to me? Go for it. Good question. Maybe 00:25:39.173 --> 00:25:48.013 - they are very related. Maybe it's a little bit more about the front end, like ability to choose to run 00:25:48.013 --> 00:25:51.102 - and serve in the first place versus 00:25:51.874 --> 00:26:00.015 - the expected impact or outcome of paying people equitably or barely for the work and like does that. 00:26:00.015 --> 00:26:08.720 - I think in general, their pay leads to better performance and outcomes. Like people don't feel undervalued. 00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:17.023 - This is not about consultation in general. People don't feel undervalued. They feel motivated by their 00:26:17.023 --> 00:26:21.214 - work. Like it matters, like it's valued, et cetera. 00:26:21.794 --> 00:26:29.419 - To me, there's some differences in those, but I understand how they're definitely related as well. And 00:26:29.419 --> 00:26:36.969 - I have no qualms of reformulating this framework. I think when I read through the values, they don't, 00:26:36.969 --> 00:26:44.520 - yeah, they can probably be clarified what some of it means. I mean, forward-by also kind of filled me 00:26:44.520 --> 00:26:49.406 - in demand. And so we could combine that too, and maybe just wanna 00:26:51.234 --> 00:27:02.563 - three values, you know, and why I like reshaped them in ways that we think are clearer. And I do strongly 00:27:02.563 --> 00:27:13.572 - with preference around that. I would say, as I reviewed them again, I think they are sound, like those 00:27:13.572 --> 00:27:21.054 - are things that I value, how I make decisions, you know. I guess, um, 00:27:21.506 --> 00:27:31.002 - A source of confusion for me is, especially on number four, is the perspective. Okay, so first, the 00:27:31.002 --> 00:27:40.783 - first three are like, we want to set the level of compensation in order for it to be, in order for the 00:27:40.783 --> 00:27:51.038 - job to be accessible or pay equitable, or I guess I would rephrase number three, something like the pay to, 00:27:53.954 --> 00:28:05.189 - the motivational or recognized service or something like that. But then number four is when we're making 00:28:05.189 --> 00:28:16.210 - these, when we're implementing these top three, we need data and relevant objective data, which is who 00:28:16.210 --> 00:28:23.486 - says it's relevant? I don't know. So it's kind of like a different, 00:28:24.098 --> 00:28:29.959 - perspective. Like, yeah, you know, these are nouns and this is the verb. Yeah. My collection is that 00:28:29.959 --> 00:28:35.995 - like we kind of, and number five also, four and five are more process oriented and first three are more 00:28:35.995 --> 00:28:41.856 - kind of value and past oriented. Also just to note on number three, another thing we talked about in 00:28:41.856 --> 00:28:47.775 - that context was like literally people being able to do things like pay for childcare or pet care or, 00:28:47.775 --> 00:28:52.766 - you know, other things that they need to be able to free up more time in their lives. 00:28:53.026 --> 00:29:00.360 - Yeah. Isn't that number one? Well, and that's where I think that they are related, but number one goes 00:29:00.360 --> 00:29:07.837 - back to, you know, feeling like, okay, I'm going to run to do this job and this job is going to actually 00:29:07.837 --> 00:29:14.957 - pay me enough to so that I can fit it into my life. But you're right. I mean, they are related. But 00:29:14.957 --> 00:29:22.078 - I think one of the things that we talked about once we get elected, the bar is actually really low. 00:29:22.402 --> 00:29:30.025 - or what we have to do. And so number three is almost like making the bar a little bit higher, you know, 00:29:30.025 --> 00:29:37.354 - in terms of people not just feeling like they need to do them or that they can only do the minimum. 00:29:37.354 --> 00:29:44.977 - It's that they can really invest more time because their compensation is high enough that they can chat 00:29:44.977 --> 00:29:48.862 - care, pet care, do evenings, all that kind of stuff. 00:29:49.058 --> 00:29:54.527 - Well then, were you, I can't, you were in a lot of these meetings. I was, I was just going to add, it 00:29:54.527 --> 00:29:59.889 - might help to think of it as number one, the accessibility of public service was meant to mean that 00:29:59.889 --> 00:30:05.251 - no matter what your socioeconomic status is, your own personal circumstances, you can afford to run 00:30:05.251 --> 00:30:10.935 - for office, period, because right now, some of the ways salaries are set, they are so low that you cannot 00:30:10.935 --> 00:30:16.565 - possibly actually run for office unless you have a partner, independent wealth, or some means that would 00:30:16.565 --> 00:30:18.334 - actually support a salary that's 00:30:18.466 --> 00:30:25.454 - running in 20,000, which is not even enough to, I don't know, pay for a home in Bloomington. 00:30:25.454 --> 00:30:33.194 - Number three, I think, was once you're there, can you actually do the position without needing to take 00:30:33.194 --> 00:30:41.160 - multiple extra jobs to do so without the things? So one is more before you run. The other is while you're 00:30:41.160 --> 00:30:47.998 - there, are you actually meaningfully engaged on your last priority on a list of very, very 00:30:48.194 --> 00:30:53.961 - because it's a big job and it's important. You guys, I'm putting it in council terms, my apologies for 00:30:53.961 --> 00:30:59.952 - that, but I tend to think more about the council salaries in this respect, but once you're in the position 00:30:59.952 --> 00:31:05.663 - and you actually afford to stay there and give it the time that it deserves, it's a big, big job. And 00:31:05.663 --> 00:31:11.319 - even though it's technically part of time, it's, you know, you need to be able to engage with it and 00:31:11.319 --> 00:31:14.622 - not have your full-time job that actually would mean that. 00:31:15.202 --> 00:31:20.932 - Yeah, I think everybody's grappled with this. We always have kind of a patchwork of people who have 00:31:20.932 --> 00:31:26.661 - no outside employment, part-time outside employment, or have full-time outside employment. I'm in a 00:31:26.661 --> 00:31:32.506 - situation where, for instance, well, the beginning of my council service was a year and a half, I was 00:31:32.506 --> 00:31:38.407 - doing part-time research for professors at IU, doing council. Since then, I've had full-time jobs, but 00:31:38.407 --> 00:31:42.590 - I'm also in a situation now, or was anyway, where I could have requested 00:31:43.042 --> 00:31:48.775 - 30 hours a week or 25 hours a week instead in my work. And like if compensation is at a level where 00:31:48.775 --> 00:31:54.680 - like you can do that, like none of these are guaranteed outcomes, of course, but like the idea is, are 00:31:54.680 --> 00:32:00.585 - we in the same way, you know, giving whatever average $10,000 raises to all our staff, like across the 00:32:00.585 --> 00:32:06.433 - government, like doesn't guarantee better government performance, but I think it does set up a system 00:32:06.433 --> 00:32:11.134 - where you're supported to be able to like maximize the chances of achieving that. 00:32:11.586 --> 00:32:18.697 - I also want to mention that these guiding principles are supposed to be related to all the local official 00:32:18.697 --> 00:32:25.540 - compensation, mayor, clerk, and council. But just for the sake of the public, I think that we focused 00:32:25.540 --> 00:32:32.315 - a lot more on council in some ways, maybe because we are council, but also maybe because the clerk's 00:32:32.315 --> 00:32:39.024 - salary, mayor's salary are already full-time salaries. Yeah. And the council isn't so not that they 00:32:39.024 --> 00:32:40.030 - might not also 00:32:41.154 --> 00:32:47.396 - need improvements in their compensation, but that it's a different calculus that those positions are 00:32:47.396 --> 00:32:53.886 - needing to settle. Yeah, I think our assessment was, in applying these, that there were different levels 00:32:53.886 --> 00:33:00.314 - of smaller and bigger deltas between where we were and what the values are for those different offices. 00:33:00.314 --> 00:33:06.494 - So it's not like they don't matter for all of them. If the mayor's salary was $70,000 a year, yeah, 00:33:06.494 --> 00:33:11.006 - we'd have a real problem across multiple people. It's not. It's perfect. 00:33:11.330 --> 00:33:19.489 - Um, that does relate sometimes to the expert or pay these on number two. Um, yeah, does that help them 00:33:19.489 --> 00:33:27.648 - both? Yeah, I guess I would, uh, suggest we rephrase. I don't disagree with anything that's been said, 00:33:27.648 --> 00:33:35.807 - but I just think it's not clear. That's fine. So what I have written down right now, we could separate 00:33:35.807 --> 00:33:39.134 - them to like a process oriented and like, 00:33:39.458 --> 00:33:46.146 - that maybe the values themselves, the guiding principles should become a restatement of those first 00:33:46.146 --> 00:33:52.834 - three in some ways. And I'm fine with one or three being combined, like it doesn't matter too much. 00:33:52.834 --> 00:33:59.990 - And then four and five, what's kind of contained in those maybe is just a separate statement about process 00:33:59.990 --> 00:34:06.879 - and how we see credit, what we see to be learned from process. So separate them into like one category 00:34:06.879 --> 00:34:09.086 - of like process to set salaries. 00:34:09.986 --> 00:34:28.168 - and then the actual values. Is values the right word for principles of the work once we get into it? 00:34:28.168 --> 00:34:39.870 - The actual work? No. Number one is value. So I think doing it as 00:34:41.090 --> 00:34:51.543 - pros paragraph is probably going to make it more clear than trying to bullet point at least work because 00:34:51.543 --> 00:35:01.598 - there's number one, number three, kind of tying those together saying, you know, level compensation, 00:35:01.598 --> 00:35:08.766 - you know, makes it allows people from various socioeconomic backgrounds 00:35:10.626 --> 00:35:18.044 - to hold the office or to hold the office regardless of, I don't know. It's a little bit of both. It's 00:35:18.044 --> 00:35:25.753 - like the ability to run in the first place and the ability to prioritize it appropriately when in office. 00:35:25.753 --> 00:35:33.098 - Write that down. Write that down to fit it. I wonder about the data to, if we, some of this comes in 00:35:33.098 --> 00:35:39.934 - the application. So I would say where like my high level reflection of all this is that like, 00:35:40.226 --> 00:35:47.957 - Nobody really disagreed with the values. We disagreed with how they were applied. And in particular, 00:35:47.957 --> 00:35:55.687 - people did not feel comfortable with the outcome reflecting something that is considerably different 00:35:55.687 --> 00:36:03.648 - than the current submit, than the status quo. And so we talked at length about the role of benchmarking 00:36:03.648 --> 00:36:07.934 - with other cities as a data input. And the question is, 00:36:08.226 --> 00:36:14.779 - is that relevant to folks and to what degree versus other data inputs, like using the, you know, 00:36:14.779 --> 00:36:22.075 - molded part, set apart, whatever it is, compensation framework, you know, categories and trying to actually 00:36:22.075 --> 00:36:28.830 - like, there's one or two of those that don't apply well to elected officials rather than the staff, 00:36:28.830 --> 00:36:34.910 - but still, like you can more or less use that system to at least get, you know, relevant. 00:36:35.138 --> 00:36:43.572 - There's a subjectivity to the ratings, of course, inevitably, but it does give you at least a data point 00:36:43.572 --> 00:36:51.684 - that you can try to make a decision based off. So I think that level of detail, I don't know if that 00:36:51.684 --> 00:36:58.110 - needs to surface in the data process piece, what types of data we end up using. 00:36:58.242 --> 00:37:05.252 - that comes to the application, because I think it was. I think that comes in the application, because 00:37:05.252 --> 00:37:12.399 - we have the relevant information and data list down there, which we're not talking about yet. Oh, yeah. 00:37:12.399 --> 00:37:19.271 - But in number four, it does say based on relevant objective data. And who's to say what's relevant? 00:37:19.271 --> 00:37:26.556 - Yeah. So I guess this is the possibility to. So the question is, should the. So under guiding principles, 00:37:26.556 --> 00:37:27.518 - do we need to 00:37:28.130 --> 00:37:35.856 - explain what relevant objective data is? Is that what you're bringing up? Well, I was going along with 00:37:35.856 --> 00:37:43.658 - a new structure where we have items one, two, and three under the Heading of Principles, and then items 00:37:43.658 --> 00:37:51.309 - four and five under the Heading of Process. Okay. All right. The relevant information slash data list 00:37:51.309 --> 00:37:54.910 - is down below. Thank you. Could it be like just 00:37:56.770 --> 00:38:02.765 - you know, a subpart of that or a footnote. Yeah, I mean, like it is, regardless of how it's organized. 00:38:02.765 --> 00:38:08.759 - I mean, like that is what it's referring to. And that is another piece of this that we either validate 00:38:08.759 --> 00:38:14.579 - or change. Yeah. And this is like the other thing that I want to remind us all right now, including 00:38:14.579 --> 00:38:20.515 - the public is when we first had published this framework a year and a half ago, it was in a very nice 00:38:20.515 --> 00:38:22.494 - like graphic kind of PDF. And it, 00:38:23.458 --> 00:38:31.724 - had to get shifted into something that was accessible. And so when it does get rewritten, it will need 00:38:31.724 --> 00:38:39.749 - to get redone as an accessible document. And so that will make paragraphing maybe a little bit more 00:38:39.749 --> 00:38:48.176 - important. I mean, we wanted to think about the format of this for us last year or two years ago a week. 00:38:48.176 --> 00:38:52.670 - It was definitely more of a nice graphical presentation 00:38:52.866 --> 00:39:01.321 - which goes back maybe to the bullet point thing. So even if paragraphs not bullet points, they're probably 00:39:01.321 --> 00:39:09.381 - as bullet points because it fit nicely. And the consultant. That's right. So any other comments about 00:39:09.381 --> 00:39:17.441 - the guiding principles piece in terms of things to change, things to combine, how to modify? So who's 00:39:17.441 --> 00:39:20.286 - going to modify these? I think that 00:39:21.186 --> 00:39:30.127 - We should keep talking about it, and then at the end, make some decisions about roles and responsibilities. 00:39:30.127 --> 00:39:38.736 - That's kind of my thought at the end of our discussion today. Yeah. So if we want to go down, why don't 00:39:38.736 --> 00:39:47.015 - we skip the basis of salary setting, because we were already talking about relevant information and 00:39:47.015 --> 00:39:50.078 - data. Well, we're coming back to it. 00:39:50.658 --> 00:39:58.636 - Probably not today, but eventually. Yeah. I'm not totally convinced that council members salary should 00:39:58.636 --> 00:40:06.460 - be set as a percentage for major stuff. I think that I agree with that. Yeah. But I guess because we 00:40:06.460 --> 00:40:14.205 - were already talking about relevant information data a little bit, I felt like that might be a good 00:40:14.205 --> 00:40:19.550 - place to skip to right now. Okay. Yes. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah. 00:40:20.898 --> 00:40:27.788 - The information that was already on there that we looked at and considered, civil city pay ranges, which 00:40:27.788 --> 00:40:34.612 - Matt already mentioned, budget restraints and capacity, which is super important, especially right now, 00:40:34.612 --> 00:40:41.370 - talking to everybody, input from council members on the hours related to meet expectations, contextual 00:40:41.370 --> 00:40:48.063 - information, reasonableness check, elected official salaries, comparisons with other cities, and then 00:40:48.063 --> 00:40:50.622 - area median income and cost of living. 00:40:50.818 --> 00:40:56.474 - So with the civil city pay ranges, one of the things that we ran into a year and a half ago was time, 00:40:56.474 --> 00:41:02.186 - because as Matt said, there were, I mean, it's like an algorithm that the civil city was using, right? 00:41:02.186 --> 00:41:07.954 - And so there are a couple of pieces of that algorithm that didn't work well with the elected officials. 00:41:07.954 --> 00:41:13.665 - And I don't remember what all of them are right now, but I remember one of them was education, because 00:41:13.665 --> 00:41:19.710 - it's not like there's a minimum education requirement or a certain degree requirement or anything like that. 00:41:19.970 --> 00:41:27.576 - And so we couldn't just easily put in the responsibilities of elected officials into that algorithm 00:41:27.576 --> 00:41:35.183 - and see what it spit out. But we did talk about figuring out how that worked a little bit in bottom 00:41:35.183 --> 00:41:43.321 - line and then figuring out how to put it in just to see what it would do. And I guess I'm still interested 00:41:43.321 --> 00:41:48.798 - in like kind of figuring out how we should do that if that is possible. 00:41:48.930 --> 00:41:54.899 - It's not possible. The reason is we don't use that algorithm anymore. The algorithm was developed by 00:41:54.899 --> 00:42:00.986 - an in-house person to support the process. But as we've gone on to work with our conversation experts, 00:42:00.986 --> 00:42:06.718 - we've gone through the AFSCME salary study, which was a separate study, and then adjusted there. 00:42:07.074 --> 00:42:14.192 - wages and had other conversations. Best practice is actually not to use anything like that for for civil 00:42:14.192 --> 00:42:21.174 - city. It's market rate. That is the number one driving determinant is what is the market rate for that 00:42:21.174 --> 00:42:28.088 - role in similar cities and then adjusting for compression problems with supervision and adjusting for 00:42:28.088 --> 00:42:35.070 - equity for similar roles across the city. So administrative assistant office manager, program manager, 00:42:35.234 --> 00:42:42.859 - similar titles like that exist in multiple departments, and they may do different kinds of work, but 00:42:42.859 --> 00:42:50.408 - typically would be compared to each other in some way. That framework didn't come from Chrome? As a 00:42:50.408 --> 00:42:58.335 - consultant, I thought that did. Yeah, I thought that did too. It was a way that HR was using to evaluate 00:42:58.335 --> 00:43:03.166 - requests as they came in to, so Chrome created the A framework. 00:43:03.362 --> 00:43:10.995 - And that was the main framework that was used. But when we were trying to resolve those compression 00:43:10.995 --> 00:43:19.238 - issues and people were doing their job descriptions on them, we were trying to assess. So I had a question, 00:43:19.238 --> 00:43:27.710 - but then I realized this is not the appropriate place. It's not really my meeting, so I just. All right, sure. 00:43:27.874 --> 00:43:36.302 - I mean, we're clearly going to be talking about this for at least probably two or three or four more 00:43:36.302 --> 00:43:45.063 - meetings. So yeah. What? I have to come back. Then you can watch that for it. It's fine. So do you think 00:43:45.063 --> 00:43:53.491 - that knowing that, that there is a way to assess the elected salaries based on civil city pay ranges 00:43:53.491 --> 00:43:57.246 - in that kind of like database mutual sort of 00:43:58.242 --> 00:44:05.511 - My personal opinion is that legislative work was really different from the kind of work that gets done 00:44:05.511 --> 00:44:13.274 - in the civil city. When you're writing legislation, it's very different. So, you know, if this was happening, 00:44:13.274 --> 00:44:20.331 - if these salaries fell under, you know, the executive branches for review to set, we would be using 00:44:20.331 --> 00:44:28.094 - benchmarks of similar cities in Indiana. That would be our top consideration because that would be closest to 00:44:28.322 --> 00:44:35.380 - the methodology followed for the other. But I understand you have different methods you want to do, 00:44:35.380 --> 00:44:42.649 - but you're sort of reinventing the wheel. So I have no thoughts on how to do that. So we probably need 00:44:42.649 --> 00:44:50.201 - a different wheel. Members have thoughts on that. And I also actually have a question like differentiating 00:44:50.201 --> 00:44:57.118 - council positions as legislative positions from clerk, from mayor. Because do the clerk and mayor 00:44:57.378 --> 00:45:04.376 - in terms of responsibilities and because those aren't as strictly legislative as council member jobs 00:45:04.376 --> 00:45:11.929 - are legislative. So is there a better comparison or more of a comparison in terms of those responsibilities, 00:45:11.929 --> 00:45:19.066 - like the actual job responsibilities? I'm looking at or calling a little bit for this. Actually, I was 00:45:19.066 --> 00:45:21.630 - going to ask the question, which is, 00:45:23.202 --> 00:45:29.257 - Are you benchmarking to other second-class cities in Indiana, or are you benchmarking to peer cities 00:45:29.257 --> 00:45:35.312 - around the country? We don't use peer cities around the country because we're not competing with the 00:45:35.312 --> 00:45:41.487 - labor market in San Francisco for civil city positions. We might be with Madison or Ann Arbor or other 00:45:41.487 --> 00:45:47.602 - places in the Midwest for some roles, but really not all. So no, just second-class cities in England. 00:45:47.602 --> 00:45:53.118 - Well, if you want that detail, you would need to talk to Director Pichak. She's the one who 00:45:53.922 --> 00:46:01.371 - has engaged all those incentives and could give you all that information. It was based on a misspeak. 00:46:01.371 --> 00:46:08.747 - No, we just spoke yesterday actually around a similar topic. So it was, she said something about two 00:46:08.747 --> 00:46:16.416 - resources for benchmarking salaries. And I didn't know what the other one was, but you referred to other 00:46:16.416 --> 00:46:23.646 - cities. Oh yeah, they have specific data sets that they look at that are created by third parties. 00:46:23.810 --> 00:46:31.695 - To your question about clerk positions versus mayoral positions versus council positions, are you asking 00:46:31.695 --> 00:46:39.280 - for the actual duties as enumerated in state code? No. Or are you asking the actual duties that each 00:46:39.280 --> 00:46:46.864 - different office does? The actual duties of like the actual stay-aligned skill set, just in terms of 00:46:46.864 --> 00:46:53.022 - whether it actually is possible to, because I mean, what I regret to say was that 00:46:53.346 --> 00:47:00.009 - You know, the legislative work is very different from what it's done in civil city. And so that that's 00:47:00.009 --> 00:47:06.866 - not small, like an apples and oranges. And so what I guess I'm asking is if it, if it is more of a closer 00:47:06.866 --> 00:47:13.724 - comparison in your opinion, between mayor responsibilities, park responsibilities and civil city employee 00:47:13.724 --> 00:47:19.934 - responsibilities, like if there's so they're, they're apples and oranges too. And all of those. 00:47:24.482 --> 00:47:30.986 - I guess I would say I'm not sure that I entirely followed the way that you're asking the question. So 00:47:30.986 --> 00:47:37.618 - I don't think I can answer it, because I don't want to answer the full question. So that's why I'm kind 00:47:37.618 --> 00:47:44.122 - of going, I don't know, because I don't, yeah, the question isn't very clear to me. Do you want me to 00:47:44.122 --> 00:47:50.563 - show them after? I think so. The broader thing here, which is, OK, we're using the system internally 00:47:50.563 --> 00:47:51.838 - in city government. 00:47:52.450 --> 00:47:58.300 - uh, to sort of like weight a variety of factors that definitely are relevant, you know, in terms of 00:47:58.300 --> 00:48:04.501 - impact, precision, making a matter of pressure involved, level of expertise. Like these things do matter. 00:48:04.501 --> 00:48:10.702 - Uh, what I'm hearing now is that we, that we don't use that anymore. We just use market rate comparisons, 00:48:10.702 --> 00:48:16.376 - uh, as the primary determinant. Like, well, the former wasn't perfectly suited to, uh, use as a, 00:48:16.376 --> 00:48:20.062 - as a basis, but it seemed to have some relevance. Market rate. 00:48:20.386 --> 00:48:25.969 - also obviously doesn't apply. I mean, it's just not a relevant comparison. No one is, with the exception 00:48:25.969 --> 00:48:31.286 - of, what was that? I was going to say Tennessee Trade owner or colleague in Europe. But no, no, no, 00:48:31.286 --> 00:48:36.603 - no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, 00:48:36.603 --> 00:48:41.921 - no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, 00:48:41.921 --> 00:48:47.238 - no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, 00:48:47.238 --> 00:48:49.790 - no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, 00:48:49.986 --> 00:48:54.955 - If that's what everybody's doing, it's just a level of circular reasoning that like doesn't have any 00:48:54.955 --> 00:48:59.923 - value at all. Other than like this is existing conditions, we're going to keep replicating it, which 00:48:59.923 --> 00:49:05.138 - is what we've been doing forever. And the question is, is that a good approach? And it seems like because 00:49:05.138 --> 00:49:10.205 - it's the status quo, it is the default unless you can get agreement on something else. I would say the 00:49:10.205 --> 00:49:15.518 - level of compensation for city council specifically does not support the values we've stated and we do know 00:49:15.938 --> 00:49:22.974 - without any real doubt based on data analysis from the court's office and others like that. We demand 00:49:22.974 --> 00:49:29.940 - considerably more of city council members in Bloomington than other peer cities do. We want to go to 00:49:29.940 --> 00:49:37.528 - two meetings a month and no committees. Great, let's do that. And no legislation. Often most city councilors, 00:49:37.528 --> 00:49:42.494 - city councils in Indiana, I think do not propose legislation. So that's 00:49:43.106 --> 00:49:50.712 - So right, it's kind of a race to the bottom situation. Clearly, we're misaligned with what we're saying 00:49:50.712 --> 00:49:58.537 - is valued, and that leaves us with a very, I mean, it leaves us with equity issues, and also accessibility 00:49:58.537 --> 00:50:05.997 - and other related issues. So it's not an easy thing to solve, but the question would be then, what is 00:50:05.997 --> 00:50:11.774 - the right basis if we have no relevant framework that we think we can draw on? 00:50:12.418 --> 00:50:18.951 - city benchmarking alone, it's not a good, I mean we could use that as a starting point and actually 00:50:18.951 --> 00:50:25.680 - try to do some data analysis about the relative expectations of the roles, like are we expecting twice 00:50:25.680 --> 00:50:32.278 - as much of living through city council than like what other city councils do and you know, Greenwood 00:50:32.278 --> 00:50:38.942 - or like whatever, like I don't know, like so that can be back to the drawing board, I mean it's just. 00:50:40.930 --> 00:50:48.068 - Go ahead, Isabel, and then I need to be conscientious of the time. We need to see a public comment on 00:50:48.068 --> 00:50:55.137 - this. And we need to kind of wrap up the, like, who's going to take some responsibilities of what to 00:50:55.137 --> 00:51:02.275 - do to prepare for our next meeting. So go ahead. Well, I was just going to agree with Matt that there 00:51:02.275 --> 00:51:08.574 - are things that were used in 2024 in the process of determining pay grades for city staff 00:51:09.282 --> 00:51:16.438 - that are relevant, I think, to council members. I mean, the level of responsibility, the consequence 00:51:16.438 --> 00:51:23.736 - of making a mistake, that kind of thing is very high for council members and that should be recognized 00:51:23.736 --> 00:51:31.388 - somehow. So I hate to throw all of that out just because it's not used now. So Gretchen, am I understanding 00:51:31.388 --> 00:51:38.686 - correctly those things are no longer used for? I wouldn't say that those things aren't considerations, 00:51:38.850 --> 00:51:45.392 - rate is where we start. And then when you run it again, those compression issues or you're looking across 00:51:45.392 --> 00:51:51.811 - similar roles, it goes down. It's always based on the job description and what is required for the job. 00:51:51.811 --> 00:51:58.045 - So one of the difficulties you face, of course, is that you can't require anyone to work X number of 00:51:58.045 --> 00:52:04.340 - hours as elected officials. You can work as many hours as you want or don't want. And it's illegal to 00:52:04.340 --> 00:52:08.414 - use your time to set hours or to track time even. So it's just a, 00:52:08.546 --> 00:52:20.450 - They're just kind of different situations. You can be fired in a civil city. Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. 00:52:20.450 --> 00:52:31.646 - So let's go to public comments real fast on this idea of the electric official salary setting. 00:52:31.778 --> 00:52:38.604 - I see Christopher M.G. with a hand up. Once again, I'm going to time you on my watch, but try to stick 00:52:38.604 --> 00:52:46.027 - to three minutes or less. Go ahead, Christopher. Good morning, Hopi, fiscal committee. This is Christopher M.G. 00:52:46.027 --> 00:52:52.721 - speaking just as a resident today. The issue of compensation and I think going, piggybacking on what 00:52:52.721 --> 00:52:59.747 - the deputy mayor had to say, there's a pretty high dispersion, I would argue, between the council members 00:52:59.747 --> 00:53:00.542 - on how much 00:53:00.642 --> 00:53:07.455 - and I don't think there's a real formula based on constituents and interest and everything else. So 00:53:07.455 --> 00:53:14.404 - that's really kind of a hard way to sort of look at it. But the real reason I wanna push back is kind 00:53:14.404 --> 00:53:21.217 - of this idea that the salary is going to open up socioeconomics, a wider range of candidates, which 00:53:21.217 --> 00:53:28.166 - doesn't take into having in this field, going to city council and talking to our business members and 00:53:28.166 --> 00:53:30.142 - talking to people to run is, 00:53:30.466 --> 00:53:36.356 - It's the running for office that you did that you're not even bringing in. It's not being an office 00:53:36.356 --> 00:53:42.541 - is where you're at now, but it takes substantial amount of time commitment to campaign while maintaining 00:53:42.541 --> 00:53:48.254 - some sort of job. I can't imagine like a single mother doing something like that and the family. 00:53:48.482 --> 00:53:55.309 - sacrifices that involve running financial fundraising, logistical fundraising, and just building a name 00:53:55.309 --> 00:54:02.005 - recognition. That's all a lot of work that I don't think any data proves that if you raise the salary 00:54:02.005 --> 00:54:08.569 - $5,000, you're going to open up this wave of diverse economic backgrounds to run for office. I just 00:54:08.569 --> 00:54:15.134 - don't think it is. And compensation, I get it, it doesn't matter. And I look at the school board of 00:54:15.134 --> 00:54:17.694 - members and MCCSC, it's $2,000 a year. 00:54:17.986 --> 00:54:24.039 - I mean, I look at them and go, oh, that seems painful. We have volunteer members of the plan commission 00:54:24.039 --> 00:54:29.859 - and the BZA who put a lot of work in there for the community for nothing. So I think we just need a 00:54:29.859 --> 00:54:35.796 - little bit of balance on this. Cause I imagine some people based on the hours and on council probably 00:54:35.796 --> 00:54:41.849 - over or underpaid if you're doing it by hourly or overpaid if you're doing it hourly. But I don't think 00:54:41.849 --> 00:54:46.622 - there's a formula on what's right and what's wrong. The council chooses, I think, 00:54:47.746 --> 00:54:54.780 - to speak to what Matt said, to go into some issues that Bloomington just goes into, but we do it by 00:54:54.780 --> 00:55:01.815 - choice. And some of the details we get into, we do that by choice, not necessarily, I think the job 00:55:01.815 --> 00:55:08.990 - demands it, but we want to do it. So I'm just gonna look at that in perspective as a fine resident of 00:55:08.990 --> 00:55:16.024 - the wonderful city that is Bloomington, Indiana. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just add on 30 again to 00:55:16.024 --> 00:55:16.798 - you. Okay. 00:55:17.410 --> 00:55:24.311 - Kevin Keough, is your hands up anew? Yes. All right, go ahead. My clock has started. Kevin Keough, CPA 00:55:24.311 --> 00:55:31.145 - internal auditor. I've reviewed the compensation framework and heard your discussion this morning. As 00:55:31.145 --> 00:55:38.314 - a professional who deals in governance and oversight, I'm deeply concerned by the premise this is directed 00:55:38.314 --> 00:55:40.190 - at the city council members 00:55:40.354 --> 00:55:45.682 - I just don't see this as a position. This document uses language of human resources, pay ranges, 00:55:45.682 --> 00:55:51.231 - market rates, and socioeconomic attainment. But although you may be employees of the civil city, you 00:55:51.231 --> 00:55:56.779 - are truly fiduciaries of public trust. This is a fundamental difference between a job and a service. 00:55:56.779 --> 00:56:02.382 - In my field, a fiduciary is someone who's held to the highest legal and ethical standard to care with 00:56:02.382 --> 00:56:07.326 - the act of the best interest of another, in this case, the taxpayers. When you frame your 00:56:07.458 --> 00:56:13.491 - compensation relative to departmental leadership, you're creating a false equivalence. Departments as 00:56:13.491 --> 00:56:19.582 - our professional staff managed by the executive. You are independent legislative body. By benchmarking 00:56:19.582 --> 00:56:25.792 - your pay against the very people you're tasked with overseeing, you compromise the independence required 00:56:25.792 --> 00:56:31.706 - as elected members of the city council. You are not middle management of the city. You are stewards 00:56:31.706 --> 00:56:32.830 - of its treasuries. 00:56:33.154 --> 00:56:41.694 - Public service is a sacrifice and a calling. It's not a career path and a pay grade. 00:56:41.762 --> 00:56:48.282 - focuses heavily on financial accessibility, but ignores the significant inherent benefits that comes 00:56:48.282 --> 00:56:55.189 - with these seats. The professional stature, the community influence, and the platform that shapes policies 00:56:55.189 --> 00:57:01.967 - are intangible assets of immense value. In my decades as a CPA, I've seen true accountability only exist 00:57:01.967 --> 00:57:08.939 - when those at the top view themselves as servants of the fund, not beneficiaries of it. When the motivation 00:57:08.939 --> 00:57:11.134 - for office shifts towards salary, 00:57:11.202 --> 00:57:16.855 - The fiduciary duty is diluted. We don't need a market-based competitive salary for council members. 00:57:16.855 --> 00:57:22.620 - We need a reasonableness check, though, that keeps your compensation as a modest stipend for service, 00:57:22.620 --> 00:57:28.838 - ensuring your interest remains aligned with the citizens, not the payroll. I'm asking committee to reconsider 00:57:28.838 --> 00:57:34.830 - the entire direction of this framework. Stop treating the council like a department. You are fiduciaries, 00:57:34.830 --> 00:57:35.678 - not employees. 00:57:35.778 --> 00:57:44.251 - If you must look at a date, look at the median income of Bloomington residents you represent, not the 00:57:44.251 --> 00:57:53.138 - salaries of the administration you oversee. Ensure that being in council marriage remains a public service 00:57:53.138 --> 00:58:01.611 - that honors the fiduciary duty you owe us. Bloomington deserves a council that values the office more 00:58:01.611 --> 00:58:05.598 - than the paycheck. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. 00:58:05.794 --> 00:58:19.551 - Are there any other members that would like to make comments on this? Okay, so going back to past members 00:58:19.551 --> 00:58:31.102 - or committee members acknowledging that it is past 930 now, the last thing on my agenda, 00:58:31.298 --> 00:58:38.865 - was looking at the schedule. And so if you notice that I have down first elected official salary discussion 00:58:38.865 --> 00:58:46.012 - today, and then I threw in an initial goal of November 4th as being the actual like adoption of that. 00:58:46.012 --> 00:58:53.649 - And the next meeting that we're talking about council is the business is on May 8th. So that's approximately 00:58:53.649 --> 00:58:58.974 - four weeks. And so to council member Piedmont Smith's comment from earlier, 00:58:59.522 --> 00:59:07.046 - Who's going to rewrite these guiding principles? And then similarly, we only talked about specific pay 00:59:07.046 --> 00:59:14.717 - ranges and that kind of benchmarking talked a little bit about benchmarking around the state of Indiana, 00:59:14.717 --> 00:59:22.095 - other second class cities. I guess I am interested a little bit in some volunteerism of who wants to 00:59:22.095 --> 00:59:28.670 - reach out and try to collect some data, who wants to rewrite this compensation framework. 00:59:28.930 --> 00:59:37.164 - How do we want to do that? We can, since we are a committee of four, do this in pairs, and then report 00:59:37.164 --> 00:59:45.878 - back in a month. And I guess that is something that I'm interested in doing. So what are you guys interested 00:59:45.878 --> 00:59:53.873 - in doing? I could work maybe with Matt on rewriting the guiding principles. Does that work for you, 00:59:53.873 --> 00:59:57.470 - Matt? Or I could do that with somebody else. 00:59:57.858 --> 01:00:06.549 - I would say been mad at him, hopefully, since we were on the original committee. Yeah. And I'm the one 01:00:06.549 --> 01:00:15.408 - that seems to be most confused by them. So that's why I would volunteer. And I would similarly volunteer 01:00:15.408 --> 01:00:23.846 - to communicate with Dave and see about, and maybe, of course, Bolden, too. I don't know, or Bolden, 01:00:23.846 --> 01:00:27.390 - if you're interested in or have the time. 01:00:27.906 --> 01:00:33.974 - to think about refreshing, because you did a bunch of research a couple years ago with the second class 01:00:33.974 --> 01:00:39.984 - city and you've got that spreadsheet somewhere. So, you know, wrangling Dave and trying to update that 01:00:39.984 --> 01:00:45.819 - spreadsheet to see how cities have moved in the last two years in terms of salaries. And I actually 01:00:45.819 --> 01:00:51.712 - had an interesting conversation this week with Madison, Wisconsin, and they are doing a similar sort 01:00:51.712 --> 01:00:55.038 - of study right now and figuring out their alternate pay. 01:00:55.586 --> 01:01:02.894 - And yeah, so I would absolutely harness Dave's because he also really wants to do benchmarking against 01:01:02.894 --> 01:01:10.060 - other second class cities. So if you are the very least able to share that spreadsheet with me again 01:01:10.060 --> 01:01:17.368 - so that then I can have the whole list and that would be great. Matt? I'm fine with that. I'm a little 01:01:17.368 --> 01:01:23.966 - loathe for us to like do a ton of work in any direction if it's not going to be used at all. 01:01:24.578 --> 01:01:30.725 - If I were a vetting man, I would bet 95% plus odds we do a total on this year's sample salary. And that's 01:01:30.725 --> 01:01:36.640 - what we said and saying next year. I think we're just, it's just there are too many diverse opinions, 01:01:36.640 --> 01:01:42.555 - even just reflected a little bit now to like actually do anything. We can't lower salaries. The mayor 01:01:42.555 --> 01:01:48.529 - makes 140,000. We make 25. Is that equitable based on what we expected both? I don't know. Do we care? 01:01:48.529 --> 01:01:53.342 - Should we all be paid nothing? Maybe. But that's not a decision we have, you know? 01:01:53.698 --> 01:02:00.486 - So it's just like, again, like people are all over the board on this. And the one thing that I feel 01:02:00.486 --> 01:02:07.274 - strongest about actually is that this is the way it is now. So therefore that's the way it'll be is 01:02:07.274 --> 01:02:14.197 - like the worst way to make a decision. And so I'm interested in another method that is rooted in some 01:02:14.197 --> 01:02:21.257 - type of value. I mean, both members of public expo were also speaking for values, you know, essentially 01:02:21.257 --> 01:02:22.750 - elected service as a, 01:02:23.362 --> 01:02:29.656 - as a privilege and service, it doesn't really, the compensation couldn't really go back through it, 01:02:29.656 --> 01:02:36.265 - you know, which is also a fine way to look at it. But again, we're not in a situation where we can lower 01:02:36.265 --> 01:02:43.000 - salaries. So all that to say like, I wouldn't want those who are included to spend a ton of time updating, 01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:49.420 - you know, data on the other sanctified cities if it's not relevant to anything that we're doing here. 01:02:49.420 --> 01:02:52.190 - So maybe just like a note of caution about, 01:02:53.122 --> 01:02:59.858 - trying to get alignment on something before we put a ton of time into it. Maybe we want to review, if 01:02:59.858 --> 01:03:06.725 - there's a past spreadsheet, maybe the next step after that, our next meeting could review that together 01:03:06.725 --> 01:03:13.989 - and say, is this even worth updating? Is this relevant for our decision making? Yeah, and I guess remembering 01:03:13.989 --> 01:03:20.725 - some about that spreadsheet, at the time, I think Gary was at the top and Richmond was at the bottom. 01:03:20.725 --> 01:03:23.102 - Are you talking about concepts now? 01:03:23.650 --> 01:03:29.617 - And I can't, I don't remember the details on manual salaries or clerk salaries, but they were similarly 01:03:29.617 --> 01:03:35.469 - like all over the place. And I remember those two as the, cause Richmond, I lived in Richmond before, 01:03:35.469 --> 01:03:41.207 - it was like $7,000 a year. And so I guess I'm kind of interested in at least kind of looking at the 01:03:41.207 --> 01:03:47.174 - ends being like, how much have people changed? And like even some simple, you know, it's like, how much 01:03:47.174 --> 01:03:50.846 - shift has there been in different places and to the point like, 01:03:51.234 --> 01:03:58.334 - So Gary, I think was a few years ago at this point, really increased their salaries of things, calling 01:03:58.334 --> 01:04:05.641 - them up. Has that resulted in better governance? What has that done for y'all as a city and your service? 01:04:05.641 --> 01:04:12.672 - I have no idea. And so I think that that is worthwhile to at least see, though I take your point, and 01:04:12.672 --> 01:04:19.358 - not necessarily spending a ton of time on it, but at least getting some preliminary information. 01:04:19.778 --> 01:04:26.602 - getting the numbers in is not impossible. If your next meeting is a moment from now, that's the type 01:04:26.602 --> 01:04:33.629 - of thing that is kind of a downtime activity. And it's not so many pieces of information that are being 01:04:33.629 --> 01:04:40.655 - paid for. It may not be complete, however, because there are subsidies that are more difficult to find. 01:04:40.655 --> 01:04:46.398 - And my impulse is not to go to the AIM salary study because that's people reporting. 01:04:46.594 --> 01:04:54.315 - but really to go to the ordinances themselves that actually do it, which is where it became a little 01:04:54.315 --> 01:05:02.112 - bit more difficult. So I don't mind doing it. It's not a huge time stop. It is worth at least looking 01:05:02.112 --> 01:05:09.833 - for, for my purposes, because I'm also having my staffs always looked at. So for me, it's related to 01:05:09.833 --> 01:05:14.878 - information we're already starting to look at. And it is helpful. 01:05:16.226 --> 01:05:22.546 - But we're in a very weird position of flux right now because I'm not entirely sure how the clerk's office 01:05:22.546 --> 01:05:28.806 - is going to be changing over the next year. That depends on you all as a body, as a whole body, in terms 01:05:28.806 --> 01:05:35.006 - of what work is going to be done and where. So I say that just to say, yeah, we can do some work. We're 01:05:35.006 --> 01:05:41.266 - going to be doing related work anyway. And I really do appreciate you calling that out. Let's do a bunch 01:05:41.266 --> 01:05:45.022 - of work and then kind of get back into it. And if I may be so, 01:05:45.218 --> 01:05:51.892 - hold, as she's saying, to a member of the public. We talked about running for office as a single parent. 01:05:51.892 --> 01:05:58.757 - We did that with young kids and worked in an elected office. And I don't think that any of these positions, 01:05:58.757 --> 01:06:05.494 - even if you wildly increase their salaries, are going to make anybody wealthy. And I think it's difficult 01:06:05.494 --> 01:06:11.978 - because the people who tend to talk the most about keeping salaries lower and that it's a service and 01:06:11.978 --> 01:06:13.694 - you all should be doing it 01:06:13.954 --> 01:06:20.974 - or the owner and the influence or tend to be people who are in the higher tax bracket overall. Not to 01:06:20.974 --> 01:06:27.926 - pinpoint any members of the public in particular today, but I tend to hear that argument from people 01:06:27.926 --> 01:06:35.015 - who are making well above what most of the council members are making and it's painful to hear in part 01:06:35.015 --> 01:06:41.278 - because I see the work that council members do and you never ought to be even who you are. 01:06:45.506 --> 01:06:53.000 - And one last thing, thank you, which is that the ability to do a fairly broad research through AI has 01:06:53.000 --> 01:07:00.568 - changed quite a bit over the last couple of years. And like all problems at the city level, we are one 01:07:00.568 --> 01:07:08.356 - of thousands of cities grappling with similar questions. And I know there are differences between Indiana 01:07:08.356 --> 01:07:15.262 - and other places, but we might be in a better position now to actually try to use AI tools to 01:07:15.426 --> 01:07:22.501 - get a broad base of how the salaries are set for part-time municipal legislative bodies across the country 01:07:22.501 --> 01:07:29.378 - in a way that we weren't previously. I think that was Mr. M.G. at a previous meeting. He said, no, what 01:07:29.378 --> 01:07:36.123 - you don't know. I mean, absolutely. We're all generalists. And that's part and parcel of the job. And 01:07:36.123 --> 01:07:43.066 - so we're always looking to data experts, et cetera. And so that's what we did when we set this two years 01:07:43.066 --> 01:07:45.182 - ago is we used the compensation 01:07:45.666 --> 01:07:52.983 - um, uh, consult, you know, that the city had also used for its salary study. And just to, to refresh 01:07:52.983 --> 01:08:00.590 - too, but they were, they, they didn't think that we were wildly off base in the framework and the values 01:08:00.590 --> 01:08:08.052 - they did, uh, I think understand that there would be reactions to any major change from the status quo 01:08:08.052 --> 01:08:13.630 - and anticipated that, uh, which is not unreasonable to anticipate, but like, 01:08:13.986 --> 01:08:20.012 - This was informed by people with expertise in compensation setting. Um, and, you know, but again, maybe 01:08:20.012 --> 01:08:25.806 - we can look to data sources and try to collect more information about how this is done elsewhere to 01:08:25.806 --> 01:08:31.890 - inform us in a way that like, we probably weren't as, it wasn't as easy to do two years ago. Yeah. Well, 01:08:31.890 --> 01:08:38.206 - and it really was interesting conversation that I had yesterday with the Madison and Wisconsin folks because 01:08:38.466 --> 01:08:44.464 - they are contacting, I think that they said they had 18 cities on their list. I'm not quite sure how 01:08:44.464 --> 01:08:50.699 - Bloomington got on their list, but we did. And they said that they'd be happy to share their conclusions 01:08:50.699 --> 01:08:56.815 - with me. And though I think that that's their timeframe and our timeframe might be a little different, 01:08:56.815 --> 01:09:02.990 - but I'm also gonna bring this to one of our base or one of our relevant data is city budget constraints 01:09:02.990 --> 01:09:06.494 - and capacity, which has also changed a lot in terms of SB. 01:09:07.458 --> 01:09:14.106 - But anyway, the conclusion, you guys are gonna get together and kind of rewrite or reformat the guiding 01:09:14.106 --> 01:09:20.626 - principles. You feel like that's still like, or it's worth it? I mean, honestly, I think that even if 01:09:20.626 --> 01:09:27.657 - we're aspirational about this, especially in the context of budget constraints and capacity and understanding 01:09:27.657 --> 01:09:34.305 - that we can't lower elected official salaries once they're set, and that that's like a realistic thing, 01:09:34.305 --> 01:09:36.734 - I think that it's still good to have. 01:09:36.834 --> 01:09:42.188 - and aspirational. Yeah. So definitely with the values, like that feels like the easier part of like 01:09:42.188 --> 01:09:47.864 - trying to reformulate in a way that just connects with our conversation. I think some of the stuff around 01:09:47.864 --> 01:09:53.218 - the basis of salary setting and irrelevant information and data is a little more complex. We could- 01:09:53.218 --> 01:09:58.732 - Oh, I thought you and I were just gonna work on the values only. That's all you guys- That's fine. I'm 01:09:58.732 --> 01:10:04.087 - interested in the next part also and like what we do there. So I'm gonna try to do some independent 01:10:04.087 --> 01:10:06.014 - research and picking on that. Okay. 01:10:06.306 --> 01:10:12.244 - Yeah, I wonder if we want to have, like, I'll try to come to our next discussion on this topic with 01:10:12.244 --> 01:10:18.241 - some additional thoughts around the approaches we consider. Yeah. So yeah, and then I'm going to get 01:10:18.241 --> 01:10:24.357 - Dave and work together with Clark Holden to figure out benchmarking against other second class cities. 01:10:24.357 --> 01:10:30.710 - And I can reach out and back out to Madison to send a dimension to them. Actually, we're talking, starting 01:10:30.710 --> 01:10:32.254 - to talk about this again. 01:10:32.642 --> 01:10:41.044 - And I also might reach out to HR around that instead of the city. I'm sure I have somewhere in my thing 01:10:41.044 --> 01:10:49.527 - there, that language that was used a couple of years ago, which I think could be relevant again, because 01:10:49.527 --> 01:10:57.767 - as a public commenter said, market rate, you can't necessarily do elected official salaries on market 01:10:57.767 --> 01:11:01.726 - rate, because we're in the place where we're in. 01:11:02.050 --> 01:11:07.974 - So it's not as though we're, it might even be that it's not so that people are shopping around just 01:11:07.974 --> 01:11:14.076 - to figure out where they're going to run for mayor or where they're going to run for council. But that 01:11:14.076 --> 01:11:20.178 - doesn't mean that people in those positions shouldn't be adequately compensated in my opinion. So I'll 01:11:20.178 --> 01:11:26.162 - leave that up to you guys. All right, anything else before we go to the order before I apologize for 01:11:26.162 --> 01:11:29.598 - being 15 minutes over? Okay, thank you. We are adjourned.