Damakant Jayshi
Amidst drama and confusion created by supervisors who offered alternate salary figures and percentages for three elected department heads on the fly, the Marathon County Board ultimately approved originally proposed salaries by rejecting all suggested amendments – and amendments to amendments.
The local Board of Supervisors agreed, with most members in favor, on the pay for the county clerk, the treasurer, and the register of deeds for the next four years, starting in 2025. This decision comes after a specialist gave advice, and the county’s Human Resources Department worked on new pay scales. Out of all members, three disagreed while seven did not attend the meeting.
According to a resolution proposing a new salary structure – the board was mandated to set the salary before a new 4-year term begins – the pay for the three positions was consistent with the internal compensation system adopted in 2022 and local comparable positions reviewed by the Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee earlier this month. The salaries for each position would increase by 3% over the preceding year throughout the remainder of the respective 4-year terms, 2026, 2027, and 2028. The clerk’s salary would increase from the current $83,422 to $93,733 with a 12.4% raise; the treasurer’s would be $76,511, up from $73,351 with a 4.3% hike; and the new salary for the register of deeds is also $76,511, up from $68,772, with an 11.3% raise. The cumulative fiscal impact during the 2025-2028 term of office will be $130,149.
County Administrator Lance Leonhard said the salaries for the treasurer and the register of deeds were made equal, reflecting their current workload, change in responsibilities, and the number of staff they supervised. Given those factors, it was necessary to bring the register of deeds’ salary at par with the treasurer’s, he added.
Supervisor John Robinson, chair of the HRFP Committee, said the new salary and job classifications were prepared by experts who based their numbers and classifications on the three principles of “responsibility, accountability and exposure” and the salary recommendations for appointed staff. Pay for the three positions had not increased since 2021, Robinson said.
But he said there were valid reasons to pay a bigger salary to the county clerk because of the election-related work she has to perform and the increased scrutiny of the elections. Last week, some supervisors had recommended making the salary of all three elected department heads to be equal. Robinson also cited the long, odd hours that the county clerk must serve and the volume of records request that she receives. It was only fair that the clerk receives a bigger pay than other elected department heads, he said. This view was expressed by other supervisors and Administrator Leonhard.
However, Supervisor Ron Covelli prepared an alternate resolution as an amendment to the original proposal, which offered a higher pay rate for the treasurer and the register of deeds but a lower rate for the county clerk, but still higher than the other two. Since the figures presented had errors in the percentages, they had to be changed. That promptd Corporation Counsel Michael Puerner and other staff to step in to calculate the correct figures, causing a delay.
Covelli’s resolution, attached to the packet, rejected the internal compensation standard and recommended that the compensation for the three positions be set based upon a comparison to state and national elected salaries for similar positions. He also proposed a 3% raise for each of the subsequent years of the term.
Addressing his colleagues on Tuesday, he said they should not use merit-based increases for these three positions. Since the positions had not seen a significant raise for the last eight years, he wanted to compensate each position “equitably.”
The total fiscal impact over the 2021-2024 term of office under Covelli’s proposal would have been $175,591, about $45,000 more than the original proposal.
Six supervisors – most of them self-avowed fiscal conservatives – voted in favor of increasing the fiscal impact on taxpayers by over $45,000: Covelli, Stacey Morache, Kim Ungerer, Tony Sherfinski, David Baker, and Tim Sondelski. Of these, Morache, Ungerer, Sherfinski and Baker voted in favor of the original resolution after the amendments were defeated, but Covelli and Sondelski voted against it. The third supervisor to oppose it was Matt Bootz.
The issue of a larger fiscal impact was pointed out by Supervisor Michelle Van Krey.
“I think it’s worth noting that members of this body who have advocated for cuts, voted against grants, lambasted the administrator and members of this body for increase in annual budget when making an amendment to increase the fiscal impact of this resolution,” said Van Krey, who represents Dist. 1.
Van Krey also asked her colleagues to respect the work performed by HR professionals. She said it is important to recognize the heavy workload the clerk has, the public scrutiny that position is under and the safety concerns that the clerk has. Nationwide, election deniers have threatened state and county elections officials, according to multiple media reports.
She also made an allegation, saying it was based on the comments made at the last meeting, that her perception is that the “treasurer is friendly with some members of this body, and they are advocating for her to get a larger raise which, in my opinion, is inappropriate.”
Supervisor Sherfinski took exception to Van Krey’s remarks, saying he felt insulted by the insinuation. He said he has no personal relationship with any of the three elected department heads. Supervisor David Baker too responded and said he does not have a personal relationship nor a friendship with any of the three officials.
Neither responded to Van Krey’s remarks about doing the opposite of what they usually advocate on fiscal responsibility. These two also were among the supervisors who initially voted to reject a grant for a family reunion pilot project in 2022. That program was approved after some revisions three months later.
Amendments galore, causing confusion and delay
Before the vote on the resolution prepared by the HRFP Committee, a number of supervisors offered alternative figures through amendments or amendments to amendments, some of them on the spot, causing delays amid questions over the financial implications involved. Each of the amendments or amendments to the amendments would have added a higher fiscal impact than the original one.
Supervisor Sherfinski offered amendment to Covelli’s amendment, by asking to match the lower two salaries with that of the county clerk. He said they should look into the compensation for these positions in all 72 counties and not just a select few.
However, Supervisor Jacob Langenhahn, while agreeing with those who said that the statutory and constitutional duties of these three positions are similar to those in other counties in Wisconsin, said there is one vast difference: the level of impact the demographics of each county has on each of those constitutional offices. He pointed out that Marathon County has about 140,000 people but Forrest County has a far smaller population, for example. Langenhahn said the constitutional responsibility is same “between those offices and our offices but the demands placed on those jobs are wildly different.”
Since none of the other 30 supervisors attending the meeting on Tuesday seconded Sherfinski’s, that measure failed. Subsequently, Supervisor Matt Bootz offered another amendment to the amendment, by retaining the salary for the clerk and the register of deeds from the resolution but ahigher rate for the treasurer: 10% instead of the proposed 4.3% in the original. That was deemed out of order by Puerner, since the supervisor was trying to change the original resolution while an amendment was pending. So, Bootz offered it as an amendment to the amendment and was seconded by Covelli. That measure was defeated 13-18.
Robinson urged supervisors not to offer numbers arbitrarily.
“If we start modifying the numbers arbitrarily here, we’re sort of playing with where things fall within the whole classification system,” he said. “I encourage people to think about that carefully.”
Vice Chair Craig McEwen was among those supervisors urging their colleagues to respect the expertise of the company on whose recommendations the compensation and classifications were based. He also requested that the supervisors not second guess the county staff and asked them to support the original proposal.
