County Council Reconsiders Community Corrections Officers’ Salaries
September 9, 2022 at 1:18 a.m.
County Council Reconsiders Community Corrections Officers’ Salaries
By David [email protected]
Council President Sue Ann Mitchell said, “The next thing that we want just to address is the Community Corrections and clarification on the action that was taken by the Council. There was some confusion as to what exactly the classification was going to be. I think all the Council was clear on it, but perhaps others may not have been 100% clear on where we were going.”
She said what the Council decided was that the home detention officers would be listed as a “civilian pole” on the wage determination table as they are currently; $1,500 would be added to their wage retroactive to July 1, 2022, which brought their wage to $42,177; and then for 2023 the 4% increase would be applied that was given to all other county employees, bringing their wage to $43,864.
“The bottom line with that says that over that two-year period, they got a $3,187 increase in what their wages were,” Mitchell stated.
She said the Council believes there was some kind of “disconnect” with the company the county uses to study salaries. “Perhaps they were not looking at what our salary schedule actually was, perhaps they were looking at something else, we don’t know at this point, but we do know that had we gone with what their request was, which was a civilian pole 6, that would mean that by next year, the home detention people would be making more than the probation officer with the same amount of experience and we believe that was not fair nor equitable nor did we believe that is how it should go,” Mitchell said.
Prosecuting Attorney Dan Hampton said the reason he was at the Council meeting Thursday was because, “I was at the meeting last week when the vote was taken. The recommendation from the wage committee was to follow Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele’s recommendation, which, at that time, was made as a ‘pat 1.’ The motion was made and seconded and approved at a pat 1.”
He said he talked to someone from the county auditor’s office and asked what the difference was between a pat 1 and a civilian 6. He said the wages for the two different job classifications was quite a difference, with a pat 1 around $70,000.
“This other recommendation that was given by Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele, which is the civilian pole 6, that salary is $45,490. I wanted to make sure that the clarification was presented that Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele presented as a civilian pole 6. Brought it to the attention of some county officers, and also we had an executive committee meeting from the Community Corrections Advisory Board - which the judges are a part of, they’re present in the room tonight. I was asked to present on behalf of the executive committee advisory board just to make sure that - the law in the state of Indiana is that the advisory board is required to create policies, procedures and also salary recommendations, but not to be inconsistent with what’s being used with other county employees.”
As the Council knows, he said they rely on Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele for advice. At the previous meeting, Hampton reminded the Council, Community Corrections Director Barry Andrew gave the Council a folder of information comparing Community Corrections wages among area counties. All those counties get their salary advice from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele.
“So you can see there that you’re substantially less than the other counties,” Hampton said.
Andrew’s packet also provided the Council with probation officers’ salaries. For a third-year probation officer, their salary is $45,634. The recommendation from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele is a little over $45,000.
“So it’s equal. It’s not more than, maybe by a few hundred dollars,” Hampton said.
He said they also had brought up the fact that Community Corrections officers are not on the stepped anniversary increase per year. “They don’t get that so they would be set at that amount,” Hampton said. “The probation officers get a yearly bump-up through the probation officer minimal standards. They get paid the minimum by statute, that’s what’s set.”
Hampton said the executive committee strongly recommended that the Council reconsider the recommendation from the county’s wage committee “and that is to keep the salary at the level that it’s been at for a couple years. It doesn’t get increased because it’s not the yearly step-up.”
After he was at the Aug. 25 meeting, and he was under the impression that they were going to follow the recommendation from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele of the civilian pole 6, Hampton said he texted Andrew to let him know that everything was fine and the Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele recommendation was followed. Then the county department heads got a note from Mitchell confirming all the actions that were taken, including that the wages for the Corrections officers were going to “stay at that level.”
When that note was issued, a Community Corrections officer resigned and became a probation officer.
He recommended the Council reconsider and stated that the Community Corrections officers have to have a bachelor’s degree. He said it’s difficult if not impossible to hire them at the $40,000 level.
Mitchell said the wages aren’t stagnant as the officers get incremental bumps from whatever the county gives and they “do move to a 10-year chart once they get to the 10-year level.”
Councilwoman Kimberly Cates asked what was the pay amount for a civilian pole 6. Hampton said $45,490. For 2023, Mitchell said that wage would be $47,310.
Hampton pointed out, as Andrew did Aug. 25, that the money to pay the officers is generated from a grant and user fees. It doesn’t come out of the general budget or taxes.
Councilman Mike Long at one point said he didn’t feel comfortable making a decision Thursday night without further study. He made a motion to table it until the Oct. 13 meeting, and Cates seconded it, but it failed 6-1 because of the required budget timeline.
There was some discussion among the Council members about the Community Corrections officers’ wages being more than jailers or probation officers. Andrew said the different jobs were apples and oranges, with the home detention officers not only being law enforcement officers but also case managers, they do intake processes, they monitor people and more.
“Compared to other counties that have separate officers for each of those duties, these officers do three. So I think I would just like you to remember that I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here. I see what you’re saying and I see you’re point, and I hear it and I understand it, but ... we have to make sure we’re comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges,” Andrew said.
Hampton reiterated that the Advisory Board requires them to have their bachelor’s degree. Jailers don’t need a bachelor’s degree.
Council Vice President Joni Truex made a motion to move Community Corrections officers to a civilian pole 6, effective July 1, 2022; pay them at that rate for the remainder of 2022; and then pay them at the civilian pole 6 rate for 2023.
Cates said that was $45,490 for 2022 and $47,310 for 2023.
Councilwoman Kathleen Groninger seconded the motion and it was passed 7-0.
Council President Sue Ann Mitchell said, “The next thing that we want just to address is the Community Corrections and clarification on the action that was taken by the Council. There was some confusion as to what exactly the classification was going to be. I think all the Council was clear on it, but perhaps others may not have been 100% clear on where we were going.”
She said what the Council decided was that the home detention officers would be listed as a “civilian pole” on the wage determination table as they are currently; $1,500 would be added to their wage retroactive to July 1, 2022, which brought their wage to $42,177; and then for 2023 the 4% increase would be applied that was given to all other county employees, bringing their wage to $43,864.
“The bottom line with that says that over that two-year period, they got a $3,187 increase in what their wages were,” Mitchell stated.
She said the Council believes there was some kind of “disconnect” with the company the county uses to study salaries. “Perhaps they were not looking at what our salary schedule actually was, perhaps they were looking at something else, we don’t know at this point, but we do know that had we gone with what their request was, which was a civilian pole 6, that would mean that by next year, the home detention people would be making more than the probation officer with the same amount of experience and we believe that was not fair nor equitable nor did we believe that is how it should go,” Mitchell said.
Prosecuting Attorney Dan Hampton said the reason he was at the Council meeting Thursday was because, “I was at the meeting last week when the vote was taken. The recommendation from the wage committee was to follow Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele’s recommendation, which, at that time, was made as a ‘pat 1.’ The motion was made and seconded and approved at a pat 1.”
He said he talked to someone from the county auditor’s office and asked what the difference was between a pat 1 and a civilian 6. He said the wages for the two different job classifications was quite a difference, with a pat 1 around $70,000.
“This other recommendation that was given by Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele, which is the civilian pole 6, that salary is $45,490. I wanted to make sure that the clarification was presented that Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele presented as a civilian pole 6. Brought it to the attention of some county officers, and also we had an executive committee meeting from the Community Corrections Advisory Board - which the judges are a part of, they’re present in the room tonight. I was asked to present on behalf of the executive committee advisory board just to make sure that - the law in the state of Indiana is that the advisory board is required to create policies, procedures and also salary recommendations, but not to be inconsistent with what’s being used with other county employees.”
As the Council knows, he said they rely on Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele for advice. At the previous meeting, Hampton reminded the Council, Community Corrections Director Barry Andrew gave the Council a folder of information comparing Community Corrections wages among area counties. All those counties get their salary advice from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele.
“So you can see there that you’re substantially less than the other counties,” Hampton said.
Andrew’s packet also provided the Council with probation officers’ salaries. For a third-year probation officer, their salary is $45,634. The recommendation from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele is a little over $45,000.
“So it’s equal. It’s not more than, maybe by a few hundred dollars,” Hampton said.
He said they also had brought up the fact that Community Corrections officers are not on the stepped anniversary increase per year. “They don’t get that so they would be set at that amount,” Hampton said. “The probation officers get a yearly bump-up through the probation officer minimal standards. They get paid the minimum by statute, that’s what’s set.”
Hampton said the executive committee strongly recommended that the Council reconsider the recommendation from the county’s wage committee “and that is to keep the salary at the level that it’s been at for a couple years. It doesn’t get increased because it’s not the yearly step-up.”
After he was at the Aug. 25 meeting, and he was under the impression that they were going to follow the recommendation from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele of the civilian pole 6, Hampton said he texted Andrew to let him know that everything was fine and the Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele recommendation was followed. Then the county department heads got a note from Mitchell confirming all the actions that were taken, including that the wages for the Corrections officers were going to “stay at that level.”
When that note was issued, a Community Corrections officer resigned and became a probation officer.
He recommended the Council reconsider and stated that the Community Corrections officers have to have a bachelor’s degree. He said it’s difficult if not impossible to hire them at the $40,000 level.
Mitchell said the wages aren’t stagnant as the officers get incremental bumps from whatever the county gives and they “do move to a 10-year chart once they get to the 10-year level.”
Councilwoman Kimberly Cates asked what was the pay amount for a civilian pole 6. Hampton said $45,490. For 2023, Mitchell said that wage would be $47,310.
Hampton pointed out, as Andrew did Aug. 25, that the money to pay the officers is generated from a grant and user fees. It doesn’t come out of the general budget or taxes.
Councilman Mike Long at one point said he didn’t feel comfortable making a decision Thursday night without further study. He made a motion to table it until the Oct. 13 meeting, and Cates seconded it, but it failed 6-1 because of the required budget timeline.
There was some discussion among the Council members about the Community Corrections officers’ wages being more than jailers or probation officers. Andrew said the different jobs were apples and oranges, with the home detention officers not only being law enforcement officers but also case managers, they do intake processes, they monitor people and more.
“Compared to other counties that have separate officers for each of those duties, these officers do three. So I think I would just like you to remember that I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here. I see what you’re saying and I see you’re point, and I hear it and I understand it, but ... we have to make sure we’re comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges,” Andrew said.
Hampton reiterated that the Advisory Board requires them to have their bachelor’s degree. Jailers don’t need a bachelor’s degree.
Council Vice President Joni Truex made a motion to move Community Corrections officers to a civilian pole 6, effective July 1, 2022; pay them at that rate for the remainder of 2022; and then pay them at the civilian pole 6 rate for 2023.
Cates said that was $45,490 for 2022 and $47,310 for 2023.
Councilwoman Kathleen Groninger seconded the motion and it was passed 7-0.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092