Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for uh accommodating our early schedule today to two o'clock.

Um we are gonna start uh the work session for legislative day 20, and um we're gonna kick it off.

We have two resolutions.

Um, first is resolution 3826.

Um,

and

I think we have Miss Renee Coleman

here.

Is

that right?

Miss Coleman, how are

you?

Miss

Coleman, we wanted you to be first up after last time on your birthday where you had to stay to the very end and we still owe you a cake and a pizza button.

You do.

So

we're gonna have to figure we're gonna have to figure that out soon.

All right.

So good afternoon, Chairman Artell and members of the county council.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come back before you regarding resolution 3826 concerning the compensation of the county administrative officer position.

I know we had an opportunity to discuss this matter during the October 13th legislative session, so I don't want to repeat all the information previously presented.

Instead, I would like to focus on a few additional points that I believe are important as the council continue its consideration of this resolution.

First, I want to address the county's existing compensation structure.

The council has considered the appropriate compensation range for employees in the exempt service and senior executives with their approval of Bill 823, which includes the County Administrative Officer position.

The established compensation range as approved by the council for the CAO position currently has a maximum range of $348,810.

I bring this up because I believe it is important to put the recommendation into perspective.

The personnel and salary advisory board has recommended an annual salary of $310,721.

That amount is not only within our established executive pay plan, but is approximately 38,000 below the EP 15 maximum.

It is also below the advanced reference point of $316,942.

In other words, we are not asking the council to establish a new executive salary grade or to move beyond the existing EP 15 compensation structure.

We are asking the council to consider a specific salary recommendation that falls within the already established framework.

Second, I want to address salary compression because I believe that is an important component of this discussion.

As the director of human resources, one of my responsibilities is to look at the compensation not only from the perspective of an individual position, but also in relation to the overall organizational structure.

When we evaluate compensation, we consider the responsibilities of the position, the level of authority, the scope of oversight, and the relationship of that position to others within the organization and surrounding jurisdictions.

The

county administrative officer position holds the highest level of administrative responsibility in Baltimore County government.

The position provides countywide executive oversight and coordination across departments, including those led by other executive level officials.

And while those department heads each carry substantial responsibilities, we must also recognize the broader scope of responsibility assigned to the CAO.

As compensation for other executive and public safety leadership position changes, we have to be mindful of the impact those changes have on the relationships between positions within our organizational structure.

That is what we mean when we talk about salary compression.

The concern is not that another position is making too much money.

The concern is whether compensation remains appropriately aligned with the level of responsibility, accountability, and the authority associated with each position.

This is important distinction because a sound compensation system has to consider both market competitiveness and internal alignment.

Third, I want to speak to the process used to arrive at this recommendation.

This is not a salary amount that was selected arbitrarily.

Lastly, I want to address the importance of consistency in how we approach compensation decisions across county government.

We regularly evaluate compensation for employees and leadership positions through established pay plans, collective bargaining, classification reviews, market considerations, and internal and internal equity assessments.

Those processes are intended to help us recruit, retain, and appropriately compensate employees while maintaining a fair and sustainable compensation structure.

The CAO position should be evaluated with that same commitment to sound compensation principles.

I certainly understand that an increase of this amount draws attention, particularly when reviewed as a percentage of the current salary, but percentages alone do not tell the full story, and the increase has to account for the prior four-year period, which is in line with what other county employees have received.

It also has to buffer compression and inflation for the next four years as well.

We also have to consider where the current salary falls within the established range, what responsibilities are attached to that position, and whether the proposed compensation is aligned with the county's existing framework.

Therefore, the PSAB recommendation of 310 721 remains within that established salary range and below is upper reference points.

From an organizational compensation perspective, this is a recommendation that can be evaluated within a structure the county already has in place.

I

appreciate the council taking additional time to review the matter and ask any questions, and I hope the additional perspective is helpful as you consider resolution 3826.

Thank you.

Thank

you, Miss Coleman.