HomeMy WebLinkAbout760668.tiff Minutes of County Council
January 12, 1976
The County Council held their first meeting in the Services Building at 1 :30 p.m.
Monday, January 12, 1976.
The following Council members were present: Nancy Clark, John Martin, Floyd Oliver, Sr.
Bob E. White and Lacy Wilkinson.
Nancy Clark read from the Charter that a President and a Vice President were to be elected
at the first Council Meeting.
The County Council appointed Nancy Clark to be the temporary Chairman.
A short discussion was held regarding the election of the President and the Vice President
due to the fact that the members of the Council felt the public should be able to get in
touch with the Council at any time and maybe the Officers should be from Greeley and have
one central telephone number. Nancy Clark did not feel anyone from the Council should be
omitted from being an officer because he/she did not live in Greeley. There being no
further discussion, Nancy Clark asked for nominations for the President. John Martin and
Nancy Clark were nominated. Voting was done by secret ballot and John Martin was elected
President. The vote was 3 to 2.
The President, John Martin asked for nominations for Vice President. Floyd Oliver, Sr.
and Nancy Clark were nominated. Voting was done by secret ballot and Nancy Clark was
elected Vice President. The vote was 3 to 2.
President Martin asked about a meeting place and Floyd Oliver reported that he had been
advised by Barton Buss that the room in the Services Building would be occupied by County
employees of the Computer Department the first of February. Mr. Oliver reported that the
old Driver' s License Bureau Building in Island Grove had been mentioned to him by Barton
Buss as a possible meeting place. Mr. Oliver stated that he did know the building had
heat but did not know about cleaning services for the building. President Martin asked
Mr. Oliver to continue research on a meeting place and until the first of February they
would meet in the Services Building.
After reading from the Charter that the County Council must meet once a month, President
Martin asked for a motion to the meeting days and time. Motion was made by Mr. Bob White,
seconded by Mr. Floyd Oliver, Sr. to meet at 1 :30 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the
month from October through March and the 1st Wednesday of each month during the months of
April , May, June, July, August and September. Motion was discussed and since this being
a new Board and not knowing how many meetings would be needed at this time, Mr. Floyd
Oliver, Sr. amended the motion to read: County Council will meet at 1 :30 p.m. on the
1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month until April , 1976 and at that time the meeting dates
will be reviewed. Seconded by Nancy Clark. Motion carried unanimously.
760668
Minutes of County Council e^, \ Page 2
January 12, 1976
A discussion on conducting of meetings, hearings, rules and regulations was held. Nancy
Clark suggested a format be prepared for the Council to go by at their meetings. President
Martin appointed Mr. Lacy Wilkinson to prepare the procedures of the organization and
Mr. Bob White to prepare the procedures of the areas to be reviewed by the Council . Nancy
Clark mentioned the following items which she felt needed to be reviewed by the Council :
Salaries of the two new Commissioners
Lawsuit which is pending
Commissioners Meetings
Hearing Session on Charter
Budget
Treasurer' s Information
Elections
County Attorney
Floyd Oliver stated he did not feel the County Council should get involved in the Lawsuit
which is now pending.
Nancy Clark advised the Council members she would bring a report to the next meeting on
the progress of hiring a County Attorney and also a calendar of the Departments assigned
to the five Commissioners which was to be designated at a work shop held in the Commissioners
Hearing Room, Monday, January 12, 1976.
After a short discussion on the salaries of the two Commissioners and reading Section 3.9
and 13.8 of the Charter, a motion was made by Nancy Clark to seek legal guidance of the
County Council 's authority of the salaries of the two new County Commissioners, seconded
by Bob White. Motion carried unanimously.
President Martin instructed Mr. Bob White to get this legal opinion from the District
Attorney.
President Martin advised the Council members that it had been suggested to him that the
County Council use one of the Secretaries from the Clerk to the Board's office as their
Secretary. Nancy Clark advised the Council that even though the Secretary was already
an employee of the County, the hours spent on the Council duties would be charged to the
County Council 's budget. She also emphasized the necessity of loyalty to the Council and
the work load which could be taken off of the Council members by hiring a part time
Secretary. There being no further discussion, motion was made by Nancy Clark to seek a
part time Secretary, which would be employed by the County, but not a present employee,
by going through the Personnel Department of the County. Seconded by Mr. Lacy Wilkinson..
Motion carried unanimously.
Floyd Oliver asked the Council members their feeling on attending the County Commissioners
meetings. It was suggested that one member, at least, should attend these meetings.
The next meeting is to be held January 21 , 1976 at 1 :30 p.m. in the Services Building
and the following items are to be on the Agenda. Meeting place, Secretary, Report on
County Attorney and Calendar on the Departments assigned to County Commissioners.
There being no further business, motion was made by Mr. Floyd Oliver, Sr. to adjourn.
Respectf�y' submitted,
Bette Rhoden, Acting Secretary ��/ /' j
APPROVED //Ay >' 7 /�� l �
,Yesident
•
ROBERT N. MILLER �. /""• Deputies
District Attorney _ -' WILLIAM G. ARRIES
STANLEY C. PEEK
MICHAEL A. VARALLO
i �'. '$ ✓ WILLIAM PHARO
WILLIAM L. CROSIER 'sE e JOHN McGOWN
MICHAEL LAZAR
Asst D1sMd Attorney • �� jQ
(
Investigators
ROBERT STAGGS
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES BARTLETT
Nineteenth Judicial District
P.D.Box 1167 Telephone(3031 353-6415 luvenite Investigator
Greeley, Colorado 80631 BETH GAY
January 20, 1976
Mr. Bob E. White
Weld County Council
District I
Briggsdale, Colorado
Dear Mr. White:
In response to your letter of January 13 , requesting a legal
opinion on four separate areas , the following is submitted:
1 . Is it possible for the council to change the salaries
of elected officials during their term of office?
The answer to this question is no, and that answer is based on the
following legal authority.
Article 14 , Section 15, of the Colorado Constitution was enacted
on November 15 , 1968 , and states that no county officer shall
have his compensation increased or decreased during his term
of office. However , it is my opinion that this constitutional
amendment was superceded by the Constitutional amendment in
Article 14 , Section 16 , (1) , (5) . This amendment was adopted
on November 3 , 1970 , subsequent to the amendment prohibiting
increases and decreases during a term of office . The two
subsections specifically referred to in this Constitutional
provision specifically exclude Section 15 , (prohibiting raises
or decreases during a term of office) from application in a
Home Rule county.
Article 14, Section 16, which allowed the establishment of
County Home Rule, also specified that this was not a self-
executing provision , in other words , there must be state statute
enacted to implement County Home Rule . Accordingly, C.R. S . 1973 ,
30-11-501 to 30-11-513 was the enabling legislation passed by the
legislature for implementation of Home Rule .
-C.R. S. 1973 , 30-11-513 , specifically states as follows :
OFFICERS. Officers of a Home Rule county shall be appointed
or elected as provided for in the Charter; the terms of office
and qualifications of such officers shall also be provided
uob White
. Page 2
for in the Charter; however, the duties of such officers
shall be as provided by statute . The Charter shall
designate the officers who shall respectively perform
the acts and duties required of county officers by statute.
No elected official shall receive any increase or decrease
in compensation under any resolution passed during the
term for which he was elected.
This statute was enacted in 1971. There can be no doubt then
that this state statute prohibits an increase or decrease in
compensation during a term of office by a county official and
specifically relates to that situation in the County Home Rule
form of government. This state statute may be unconstitutional
in that it appears to conflict with Article 14, Section 16 of
the Colorado Constitution. This could only be decided by the
council raising or lowering an officials compensation after so
amending the Home Rule Charter to allow such . This would then
allow a court test. The Home Rule Charter itself , in Section
3-9 , (2) , specifically disallows an increase or decrease during
the term of office by the following language, "No members
compensation shall be increased or decreased during his term of
office, except as permitted by law. " and then in section 3-9
(3) , it is stated "Until otherwise set, .the salary of the members
of the Board shall be : Commissioners of Districts I and III ,
$10, 000; and Commissioner of District II and Commissioners-at-
large, $15, 000 per year .
Furthermore, Section 18-6 of the Home Rule Charter specifically
provides "until otherwise established as provided by this Charter,
the salaries of all elected officials shall remain the same as
they existed on the effective date of this Charter. "
It is my opinion that because of the Constitution and the
statutes enacted under the Constitution and the Home Rule
provisions that increases or decreases in compensation cannot
be given during the term of office for which the official is
elected, for the reasons set out above.
However , the problem really arises under Section 13-8 (1) of
the Home Rule Charter which says that , "the Council shall set the
salaries of all elected officials . Ig the case of the Board of
County Commissioners , the effective date of any change in salary
may be delayed so as to provide for equal compensation for
all commissioners at all times. " The words "salary" and
"compensation" seem to be used interchangeably throughout the
charter .
It is apparent that at the present time , the salaries for all
the commissioners are not the same and depending on when the
Council should choose to increase the salaries of commissioners ,
they may never be the same, but the provision in this section
that allows for a resolution to change the salaries but to
delay that raise is the answer to question number two of your
letter , which asks.:
. Bob White
Page 3 /'\ es-N
2. How would it be possible for the council to provide
for equal compensation for all commissioners at all times?
It is my opinion that if the council would pass resolution
prior to the next election, which stated that all commissioners •
would be paid $15,000 beginning on January, their inaugration
date in 1977 'then at that time, all of the commissioners would
be paid equally, since three commissioners are presently paid
$15 ,000 and two commissioners are paid $10, 000 . However, the
two that are paid $10 ,000 would be up for election in November
of 1976 , and then when the two elected to those offices assumed
office in January of 1977, they could accept the $15 ,000. This
would make the salary the same for all of those people at that
particular time in 1977 . Thereafter, the Council would have to,
in my opinion, pass a resolution raising the pay of the County
Commissioners at least two years in advance, because as the Charter
sets out , three commissioners are elected in one year and two
of the remaining five commissioners are elected two years
thereafter. This would not allow the salaries to remain equal
two out of every four years assuming that salaries were increased
as frequently as two years . It is my opinion that under the
Charter , the purpose of the provision to delay the implementation
of salary increases is to allow the Council to set salary
increases but to delay them, because of the staggered times of the
various officials , thereby allowing for substantial compliance
of Section 13-8 of the Home Rule Charter.
3. Does the fact that all of the commissioners were sworn
in January 2 , 1976 , have any bearing on determining
the legal aspects of changing their salaries?
The answer to that question is clearly no. The terms of the
office are still the same regardless of the ceremonial swearing
in of all of the commissioners . This ceremonial swearing-in of
the three existing commissioners at the time of the swearing-in
of the two home rule commissioners was indeed, only that ,
ceremonial, and has no legal effect on the Constitutional,
statutory, or Home Rule provisions discussed above and can
therefore have no legal effect upon. the changing of salaries
for those particular officers .
4 . Is it the right or authority of Council to consider
and rule on such things as vacation , sick leave, mileage ,
and other expenses (and I would assume other fringe
benefits , such as insurance and retirement) of elected
officials at the time of setting salaries or at any
other time during their term of office?
Section 3-9 (1) , (2) , specifically refers to the word compensation .
when speaking of the Council ' s authority to govern the pay of
the Board of County Commissioners . However, Section13-9 (3) uses
the word salary when speaking of setting the commissioners pay.
A further complication is found in Section 3-8 (1) which states
the following, "The Council shall set the salaries of all elected
Page 4
officials. In the case of the Board of County Commissioners ,
the effective date of any change in salary may be delayed so
as to provide for equal compensation for all commissioners
at all times. " (emphasis added) It is apparent from the inter-
changeable use of the two words salaries and compensation in both of
the referred sections of the Home Rule Charter that the two. words
are used synonymously in the Home Rule Charter , and it is my
opinion, under the rules of statutory construction that the
use of the word compensation means salary because of the
interchangeable use in the Home Rule Charter. This means that
the Council does have the right to set salaries for all elected
officials and the Board of County Commissioners. By salary, I
am specifically referring to a specific dollar figure. Salary
would not include vacation, sick leave , mileage, and other expenses
or other fringe benefits , such as insurance and retirement. If
the Council could set all. of the fringe benefits , then the, dollar
impact on the county would be substantially greater than the
figure for salary.
It is further my opinion, that since salary and compensation have
been used interchangeable in the charter and since for the purposes
of the Charter , compensation means salary, then all of the fringe
benefits that you enumerate in question number four , as well as
insurance and retirement, could be raised cr lowered during a
term of office of any elected official or county commissioner.
Furthermore, it would seem advisable that since many of these
fringe benefits are set by policy decisions by the Board of
County Commissioners and probably just as many of these fringe
benefits are subject to forces outside the contril of the County
Commissioners i.e . ; insurance premiums , and th® „lileage rates
as established by the state , that the Council ought to recommend
under their powers in Section 13-8 (6) that all elected officials
and County Commissioners be subject to the same policies relating
to vacation, sick leave, mileage and other expenses as well as
insurance and retirement and other fringe benefits as are all
other county employees. This would prevent unequal application
of the various fringe benefits between county employees and elected
officials and it would also establish policies which at this time,
are not definitively dealt with in county government.
Sincerely yours ,
Rob t . Mi ler
District Attorney
•
ns
Hello