When then-Jeffco Treasurer Mark Paschall was accused of offering a top aide a $25,000 bonus in an alleged kickback scheme, the flaws in Jefferson County’s bonus payment system were exposed.
The sensible thing to do would have been to shut down the practice while devising a consistent system with some safeguards.
Instead, the county kept on awarding employee bonuses, more than $280,000 last year. Since 2004, bonus payments have increased 760 percent, according to a story in The Sunday Denver Post.
So much for the recession.
Jeffco ought to stop awarding bonuses until widely accepted pay procedures are in place.
County administrator Jim Moore admitted the county’s bonus system is “not very consistent,” and said he hoped officials could agree to a unified system by the end of summer.
County commissioners give officials a “bucket” of money for all salary adjustments, including raises. In 2009, that will be a 3 percent increase. The officials apportion it the way they see fit, leading to fragmented award criteria.
We have no problem with the awarding of modest bonus pay for exemplary work. However, such a system ought to come with clear rules.
A pool of bonus money without strict rules on how to award it sounds to us like a slush fund. Jeffco ought to take a cue from Denver, which awards bonuses and merit pay for initiatives with specific and measurable goals — projects the mayor approves ahead of time.
Jeffco officials say they use the term “bonus pay” as a catch-all. It could include compensation for taking on additional duties or a one- time lump sum. Nomenclature aside, as we mentioned before, this country has been in a recession since December 2007. No matter what you call such adjustments, they’re tough to justify in this environment.
And the county has been aware of issues with the bonus pay system. In 2005, Jeffco hired a firm to do a compensation study — a task the company failed to complete. For the record, the county did not pay the firm a dime. Another firm was hired, and a new study is in under way.
At the end of 2006, then-treasurer Paschall allegedly offered a $25,000 bonus to a top aide with the promise that she split the post-tax proceeds with him. Two juries deadlocked on a charge of compensation for past official behavior and prosecutors declined to try Paschall a third time. At the time, officials said they were considering bonus policy changes.
We hope the county follows through this time and puts into place a unified and justifiable system. In the meantime, it might help if officials turned off the cash spigot.
