Controller's, treasurer's pay hikes startle Allegheny County Council
By Bill Vidonic
Published: Friday, Jan. 13, 2012
Thirty-five percent salary increases this year for the Allegheny County controller and treasurer may have surprised and dismayed some county council members, but that may be because they did not read budget documents and don't like state law, officials said on Thursday.
Councilman William Robinson, chair of the budget and finance committee, said everyone should have known about the pay raises for new county Controller Chelsa Wagner and longtime county Treasurer John Weinstein.
"It should not have been a surprise to anyone who was familiar with the budget process or anyone who read through the budget process," said Robinson.
Council discussed the raises during 2012 budget hearings in November, he said, and they are outlined in budget paperwork.
Councilman Matt Drozd, who represents municipalities including Ross and Moon, said the information "might have been buried somewhere in the budget conference" but was not discussed as a whole by the 15-member county council.
"I think we need to discuss this," Drozd said.
Weinstein and Wagner's attorney said they believe the raises are fair. "Everybody has expenses that go up in their lives, and I'm no different," Weinstein said.
If county council members have a problem with the raises, Robinson said, they should take up the issue with state legislators. State law empowered the then-board of commissioners to establish the salaries of the three officials and grant cost-of-living increases. The raises represent unclaimed cost-of-living increases dating back to 2001.
Robinson said he did not have a problem with the raises, despite the county's financial struggles.
"Pay increases are never a popular thing with anyone," he said.
The annual salaries for Weinstein, treasurer since 1999, and Wagner, who took office Jan. 2, rise from $66,500 to $89,904.
"Holy cow, I wish I got a raise like that," said Hampton resident Geraldine Morici, 72, a registered Democrat. "I'm not too happy about that with times the way they are."
Allegheny County Council Vice President Nick Futules, who represents District 7, said he learned of the raises on Wednesday from a news report. County Council would look into the matter, he said.
"We are currently short-staffed in our office, but I'm sure we will have answers sooner rather than later," Futules said.
Wagner told the Tribune-Review last week that she will not begin drawing a county salary until she resigns her state House seat, which pays her $82,000 a year in salary, plus health and retirement benefits. She said that would be when Democratic leadership assures her that her constituents will be served as reapportionment moves her district to Allentown.
Weinstein said he has not taken a cost-of-living increase in more than a decade, saving taxpayers $150,000. "This was not a back-door pay increase. The process was thoroughly transparent," he said.
Brad Korinski, chief legal counsel for Wagner, said she did not learn about her raise until after she took office. He did not know who pushed for it but said she will accept it.
"Wagner has been in favor of cost-of-living increases generally throughout her career," Korinski said. "(Cost-of-living raises) are widely accepted as objective, fiscally prudent and nonpolitical for determining compensation for elected officials."
The legality of the raises is not in dispute, county Solicitor Michael Wojcik wrote in a Dec. 27 letter to elected officials.
Before the county switched to a home-rule charter and county council system, the commissioners in 1999 decided that the controller, treasurer and sheriff, as elected row officers, could ask for cost-of-living raises that matched union-negotiated raises, starting in 2001.
Sheriff William Mullen declined his pay raise. His salary remains at $64,000.
"It just was not the time for me now," Mullen said, declining further comment.
County Council voted last month to raise property taxes 21 percent in part to defray state cuts for human service programs.
"People out there are hurting right now," Drozd said.
Weinstein said he followed procedures set out in the Dec. 27 letter from Wojcik, who said the raises should be included as a line item in the budget and "shall be discussed by the appropriate row officer before County Council as part of the annual budget adoption process."
The letter also states that the row officer simply has to submit a form to the controller's office claiming the change in pay. Weinstein signed his on Dec. 28, and Deputy Controller Guy Tumolo signed one on the following day.
Wagner did not sign her form, but Tumolo signed it on her behalf on Dec. 30, before she took office.
Tumolo said he was "surprised" to see Wojcik's letter about the increases, and that he and former Controller Mark Patrick Flaherty discussed it. Flaherty "felt that it had to be initiated before the end of the year, and he was unavailable to sign it, so I signed it," Tumolo said.
Flaherty, who left office on Dec. 31, would not discuss the matter yesterday.
Wojcik said he did not know who asked for the legal opinion on the raises that sparked the Dec. 27 letter. He said County Council could overturn the legislation that allowed the increase.
Both Weinstein and Korinski said the increases won't mean that someone else gets a pay cut or that a position will go unfilled. Weinstein's annual budget of nearly $5.8 million, and Wagner's of nearly $6.4 million will cover the pay raises.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Analysis: Steelers could fill needs with free agents while not spending big bucks
- Police charge Westmoreland County priest in $124,000 theft case
- Steelers to release LaMarr Woodley; Taylor restructures contract
- Crosby lifts Penguins over Capitals in last game of road trip
- Woman sues UPMC over pregnancy drug test
- Pittsburgh council introduces resolution to pay Rocco’s vet bills
- 2 Jeannette women rescued from burning apartment building
- Legislators propose bill to split up Pennsylvania-owned university system
- Pittsburgh’s Rubber Duck to be redeployed to Norfolk
- Ordinance requires Pittsburgh government to publish data online
- Job cuts at AGH part of ‘strategic’ process