City manager: Improper raise an oversight
By: Elizabeth Rogers
(Note: This was published originally by The Lincoln-Times News in December 2014 under my maiden name, Heffner).
Lincolnton city manager Jeff Emory approved a 1 percent cost-of-living raise for himself and all other city employees in May.
In December, City Council members told him he had to give his back.
Emory, the city’s top administrator, is employed under a contract approved by the City Council and is subject to a yearly evaluation in November or December. An addendum to his contract, dated Jan. 10, 2013, and signed by Emory, Lincolnton mayor John Gilleland, city clerk Donna Flowers and city attorney T.J. Wilson, shows that from 2011 onward, the council would consider cost-of-living adjustments to Emory’s salary during his annual review, “rather than on July 1st of each year.”
“Basically, I made a mistake,” Emory said during an interview with the Times-News. “I should have realized the city manager has a separate contract, which puts me in a different category than all other city employees.
“In my original employment contract, it clearly stated that when city employees received a cost-of-living increase or any other increase, that would apply to the manager. Well, that’s what happened for about the first 15 years of my employment. And then January of 2013, there was an addendum to my employment agreement adopted by council that said that the cost-of-living for the city manager would be reviewed in November rather than July 1. So, when I presented the ’14-’15 fiscal year budget this year, I did not have an increase in there for anyone. Near the end of the budget negotiations, council decided to give all of the employees a 1 percent increase. And, mistakenly, at that time, I thought that applied to me. “
Emory said he discovered the error shortly before his annual November evaluation.
“I realized that from talking to another council member about the wording in that addendum, I realized at that point that maybe I had made a mistake,” he said. “So, when City Council completed my annual evaluation in November, before they started, I asked the council if I could speak with them first. And I told them what had happened, that I realized I had done this and also offered to pay it back. Council decided in November that they needed some more time to look into it — I guess to think about it — so in the December meeting, I reiterated that I would be more than happy to pay the money back…after the motion (was made), I paid the money back, and my salary has gone back to what it was June 30.”
According to Emory’s personnel action form, submitted May 28, Emory’s annual salary at that time was $116,660. With the 1 percent cost of living raise increase, it bumped his salary to $117,766, a $1,106 increase per year.
In the eyes of Councilman Martin Eaddy, Emory’s action was ultimately the result of miscommunication from both parties.
“There was a breakdown in communication,” Eaddy said. “When we said ‘all employees,’ that was interpreted (to mean) ‘all employees.’ Then, we found out later on there was an exception to that that we didn’t really talk about at all when we were doing the budget. So in my mind, that’s a procedural error. I’m not sure whose error it was, I guess both of us are at fault.”
The entire council doesn’t share Eaddy’s view. Councilman Devin Rhyne said he believes Emory signed off on the salary increase intentionally. Rhyne said he first discovered the issue when the council members received their packets in October for Emory’s evaluation.
“No one pointed it out to me,” he said. “As I was going through the packet, I noticed that our city manager had received a raise and that threw up a red flag to me.”
Rhyne was the sole councilman at the December meeting in opposition to the motion made for Emory to return his 1 percent cost of living raise.
“I felt like the punishment should have been harsher than simply paying back the salary increase,” he said. “I would have preferred a harsher punishment. I know that the other council members knew my intent. This wasn’t enough. We should have taken further steps against the city manager besides just paying back that salary. It was more to make a statement that we weren’t going far enough.
“There are two things that I know that are public information,” Rhyne said. “The contract is crystal clear that he is reviewed by the council. The contract is crystal clear that it happens in November. There are no two ways about it. He knows when he gets reviewed and when he doesn’t. I don’t believe that he did not know what he was doing.”
Managing editor Michael Gebelein contributed to this report.
Comments