Due to an increase in population recorded in the 2010 census, Holly Township will be receiving an increased amount of revenue sharing from the State of Michigan, to the tune of more than $100,000. With the added revenue stream, the Township will be able to undertake projects and improvements that the tough economy and austere Township budget have not allowed.One potential use for these added revenue dollars is the equalization of the Deputy Treasurer position, which is currently part-time with no benefits. Holly Township Treasurer Mark Freeman has been advocating to have his deputy paid at an equivalent amount to the Holly Township Deputy Clerk, which is a full-time position with benefits.
Mr. Freeman argued again at the December Board of Trustees meeting that 90% of the other township municipalities in Oakland County and the surrounding area have equity in their deputy positions between the two departments. A better pay rate would serve to retain experienced and capable personnel and attract higher-qualified and talented candidates in the time of a vacancy.
While Freeman’s predecessor, Bernice Alexander, did not make full use of her Deputy Treasurer and thus allowed it to be trimmed down from a full-time position, Mr. Freeman assured the board that equivalent funding would allow the Treasurer’s department to reach its full potential, but his lack of specifics as to what more could be done left trustees Steve Ruth and Janet Leslie without a compelling value-argument for the use of Township public funds.
Following the approval of budget amendments that did not include an increase in funding to the Deputy Treasurer position, Mr. Freeman read a strongly-worded statement that the issue of equal funding for the Deputy positions would continue to come up and reiterating his argument.
This spirited debate between the Clerk’s department and Treasurer’s department has been going on since shortly after the 2010 elections which brought Mr. Freeman into office. However, there’s another issue of inequity in the Holly Township government that is being overlooked by the Board of Trustees, except the one Trustee that can’t really bring it up: the Township Supervisor.
While Mr. Freeman and Clerk Karin Winchester have sparred back and forth about the work load and status of their respective deputies, the Township Supervisor position has no deputy at all. While Mr. Freeman advanced the argument that the Clerk and Treasurer are equal and peers (and so should be their deputies), the Township Supervisor, the third of the tripartite elected administrators, is a part-time position with a base rate of around half of the Clerk and Treasurer position.
This is a more grievous inequity than that of the Township deputies, but one that would require a champion other than sitting Supervisor Jesse Lambert. For Mr. Lambert to champion a move to full-time with commensurate compensation, or to advocate for the creation of a funded Deputy Supervisor position on par with the other deputies would appear self-serving.
Mr. Freeman’s arguments about the trends of deputies in Oakland County holds true—mostly every other township has a full-time Supervisor paid as an equal to the Clerk and Treasurer, and in most cases has either a dedicated or shared Deputy Supervisor. Holly Township may not have the development and need as a township like Waterford might have, but these aren’t the days of Dale Smith, a well-known proponent of the status quo. Mr. Lambert campaigned on a platform of growth and progress, he’s delivered on that platform so far, and continued progress needs continued resources.
Mr. Lambert did try to get his message across to the Board of Trustees when he mentioned several times during the meeting that while Holly Township has access to these funds, the manpower available to be able to manage the projects to utilize them is limited; the funds may not all be spent and not everything that needs to be done might get done right away. That’s about as strong of a cry for help as you can get without outright saying it.
Statutorily, the Supervisor’s position is the mostly open-ended one; the Treasurer and Clerk each have more narrowly defined roles, and the Supervisor handles “everything else.” So while Mr. Freeman provided a lacking answer to Ms. Leslie’s query about the benefit of an equalized Deputy Treasurer to the Township residents, the answer to the same query for a full-time Supervisor or Deputy Supervisor is much more clear.
One of Ms. Leslie’s hot-button issues is economic development. A Supervisor upgrade would have more time to interface with Oakland County, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation or just about any other entity that can help attract businesses, residents and jobs to Holly Township.
The market research survey conducted by the Holly Area Economic Development Task Force in 2010 revealed that communication was severely lacking within the community. While Mr. Lambert has made great strides in bridging that gap, having more hours or a Deputy with the designated duty of managing communications channels and outreach might bring even more Holly residents into the know. And there are many other projects and opportunities that would become realities through added human resource investment.
And while Mr. Freeman is pursuing equality for his Deputy, his own argument that there is a trend of equality across Oakland County amongst township governments should also apply to the Supervisor’s position. In any change, care should be taken to avoid the notion that the change is based on the person, Mr. Lambert, and not the position. An increase to full-time or the addition of a deputy could be approved to take effect following the 2012 election, allowing the people to decide on the person independently.
Although the revenue sharing levels from the State of Michigan might vary year to year and are always in question, Holly Township has firm population-growth trend, meaning at least some level of increased funding will be available for some time, especially with the eventual recovery of the economy. If Holly Township wants to continue its own trend of growth and progress, those resources should be allocated to maximizing that trend, and a full-time Supervisor or a Deputy Supervisor would be the best use of those resources.
13 Responses to “Supervisor Equity”
Mr. Freeman complained about his work load and the amount of money he was earning as soon as he was elected. It wasn’t long before he hired his deputy to lessen his load and now he’s complaining about her salary. Maybe the job is too much for him.
I agree with you, if there is an inequity it is in the supervisor’s position. I also believe we would be better off with one full time person than two part time people with one the deputy for the other. The question now is – Can Holly township afford a full time supervisor? Or can Holly township afford to go forward with a part time supervisor?
Township Treasurers are required by law to hire a Deputy. I have never complained about my work load or my rate of pay. This is a question of equality in funding. Are the Clerk and Treasurer’s departments equal in status and responsibility? Over 90% of the cities, villages and townships in Oakland County say yes. Logic would dictate that if the departments are equal then they should receive equal funding. This isn’t about getting “more” for the money. It is about fairness and equity. The Deputy Clerk and the Deputy Treasurer cost centers were budgeted the same for many years. The previous administration reduced the funding for the Deputy Treasurer’s cost center. I am recommending that we restore that funding out of our increased State Shared Revenue. I offered a compromise where the funding would be gradually increased over a period of time untill it equalized with the Deputy Clerk’s cost center. The majority of the Board would not agree to this. Evidently they do not believe the departments are equal. My Deputy Treasurer is being short-changed in comparison to the Deputy Clerk. Anyone in my position would feel the same way.
I am please to see you fight for your Deputy Treasurer, Mr Freeman.Why can’t an impartial panel evaluate the two departments to see if they are equal? What is fair? Let’s try to get this settled once and for all!
What hasn’t been explained yet is whether there is a need for the increased staffing and whether a deputy treasurer could fill that need. As a tax payer, I think creating equity simply for the sake of equity is silly. If there is a need or demand for the increased staffing then there is cause to consider this.
I think it may be beneficial to explain the need for the additional staffing. What projects have been put on hold that could be completed? What would the deputy’s expanded job description look like? If we are going to talk about equity it would make sense for it to be in work and pay.
What is the definition of equity in this case? Is it equal pay for equal title, or is it equal pay for equal work?
If the supervisor’s position didn’t have enough legitimate work to do, then calling for a bump up to full time with compensation might be a tough sell. However, even with the increase in shared revenue, Mr. Lambert stated several times there just isn’t the manpower to tackle all of the potential projects on the slate. No other member of the Board of Trustees disagreed with him.
I completely agree Ryan, which lends to your point and makes it compelling. On the other hand, those same details (projects that have been put on hold, the inability to spend the entire revenue increase for lack of project oversight, etc) were left out of Mr. Freeman’s argument for equity both times I had seen it.
As a tax payer, if you are trying to sell me on “equity” between the two deputies then as part of the pitch should include what my money gets me. The same should go for the sales pitch to the board although this may have been done during the budget worksession that I wasn’t at.
As I said, over 90% of the cities, villages and townships in Oakland County provide equal or very similar funding for these two cost centers. That is overwhelming evidence that these two positions are considered equal in status and responsibility. Let’s look at this from the other side. How do the taxpayers know that the Clerk’s department couldn’t “get by” with a part-time deputy clerk earning the same wages and working the same number of hours as the deputy treasurer?
I am fairly confident that the majority of the Board would not approve that either.
I am looking for a factual and legitimate reason why the majority of the Board wants to maintain the status quo which in my mind is not fair and equal funding.
You have a point Mark, but doing something because someone else does sounds reminisce of a saying about jumping off a bridge… I also see your desire for equity across departments, but doesn’t that do more to strengthen the point Ryan makes in this editorial?
And the taxpayers would rely on administration to manage the office in an efficient and cost effective manner. If administration notices excess then wouldn’t it be their responsibility to report this to the board? The same would go for a need for increased staffing. If administration was coming to the board and saying, “We have projects x, y and z that we have funding for but we just don’t have the staffing to oversee the projects.” I think this would be easier for the board and for taxpayers to get behind then “equity”.
“Potential” was mentioned in the presentation but what that potential could be was never defined. That is the product that is being sold and unless it is defined people won’t want to buy it.
I can’t disagree about the disadvantage that was spoken of regarding the inequity but that also presents a competition of sorts between the two departments, and that shouldn’t really exist should it?
Equalize the two positions any way you want to. That would eliminate any perceived or realized disadvantage, competition, inequity, etc.
Deputy Clerk: Salary $25,386.00 Dep. Treas: Salary $20,800.00
Ben. 17,196.24 Ben. .00
Ret. 2,538.60 Ret. .00
Total 45,120.84 Total $20,800.00
Divide total compensation by total number of hours worked per year.
Deputy Clerk total hours yr. 1,690= $26.70 hr.
Deputy Treas. total hours yr. 1300= $16.00 hr.
It is common for employees not to receive increased wages in lieu of a benefit package. That ultimately falls at the descretion of the employer (mine does not offer an increased wage in lieu of benefits). This consideration actually changes the Deputy Clerk to $15.02 per hour + benefits. I am not sure what the employee guidelines or the benefit definition is with the township, but if benefits are reserved for “full time” employees, shouldn’t the effort then be made to show the need for a full time deputy treasurer so that the benefits could be realized?
Ryan: My totals shifted when I submited my last comment.
The problem here is that the disccusion turns into an endless debate cycle similar to what happened at the budget work session. Either the two positions are equal in status and responsibility or they are not. Each person will have to decide for themselves. Saying, “well it’s always been this way and we’ve always gotten by” is not a legitmate reason to maintain the staus quo. For many years these two positions were budgeted exactly the same. The Deputy Treasurer’s funding was reduced around 2006 or 2007. I am trying to restore this funding.
I agree Mark. But to warrant the increase there has to be a need. Why would you increase production without demand?
Editory’s Note: This Comment has been relocated to: http://www.therailonline.com/letters/2012/01/18/on-supervisor-equity/