HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2026 Item 6i, Cross
Brett Cross <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Council agenda: Raise for SLOPD Chief
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Opposition to Amendment Granting the City Manager Authority to Negotiate Individual Department Head Contracts
Councilmembers,
I am writing to express opposition to the proposed amendment to the Unrepresented Management Compensation and
Benefits Resolution that would authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute individualized employment contracts
for Department Heads, including compensation and benefit provisions that differ from the standard management
compensation framework.
After reviewing the staff report, I am concerned that this proposal would reduce transparency, weaken Council oversight
of executive compensation, and create a governance structure that has not been adequately justified.
First, the proposal appears to solve a problem that has not been demonstrated.
The staff report states that the purpose of the amendment is to improve the City's ability to recruit and retain executive
talent in a competitive labor market. However, the report does not identify any failed recruitments, declined offers,
retention challenges, or other evidence demonstrating that the existing compensation structure has prevented the City
from hiring or retaining qualified Department Heads.
Before delegating additional authority over executive compensation, the Council should first determine whether a problem
actually exists and whether the proposed solution is necessary.
Second, the primary example used to justify the amendment does not support the proposed change.
The report identifies compensation compaction between the Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief positions as the current
issue to be addressed. Yet the report also acknowledges that the proposed Police Chief compensation adjustments fall
outside the authority being delegated to the City Manager and therefore still require Council approval.
In other words, the very example offered to support the amendment would not be resolved by the amendment itself.
If the Council believes adjustments to the Police Chief's compensation are warranted, the Council can address that issue
directly without creating a new compensation framework for every Department Head position in the organization.
Third, individualized executive contracts reduce transparency and public accountability.
The City currently maintains a relatively straightforward and transparent system through a publicly adopted Management
Compensation Resolution. Residents, employees, and Councilmembers can review compensation and benefits in a single
governing document.
Under the proposed amendment, compensation provisions would become dispersed among individual employment
agreements negotiated outside of public meetings. While those contracts may ultimately be public records, the process
becomes significantly less transparent and more difficult for the public to monitor.
1
The report does not explain how the public will be informed when relocation reimbursements, hiring bonuses, advanced
leave benefits, or severance provisions are granted. Nor does it establish any reporting mechanism that would allow
residents or Councilmembers to evaluate how frequently these provisions are being used or their cumulative fiscal impact.
Fourth, the proposal creates fiscal risk under the banner of flexibility.
The report states there is "no direct fiscal impact" associated with granting the City Manager this authority. However, the
authority being requested includes the ability to negotiate:
• Hiring bonuses of up to one month's salary
• Relocation reimbursements of up to $30,000
• Advanced leave credits upon hire
• Severance provisions of up to four months' compensation
Each of these provisions carries a financial cost. While any individual contract may fit within an existing departmental
budget, the cumulative impact across multiple recruitments, departures, and negotiated agreements could become
substantial over time.
The Council should not delegate authority over these expenditures without requiring meaningful reporting and oversight.
Fifth, executive compensation is a policy matter that deserves Council review.
Compensation decisions affect organizational culture, internal equity, recruitment priorities, retention strategies, and long-
term fiscal obligations. These are not merely administrative decisions. They are policy decisions.
For that reason, deviations from the City's standard compensation framework should remain subject to Council review and
approval rather than being delegated to a single administrator.
Finally, I am concerned that this item has been placed on the Consent Calendar.
This proposal is not a routine administrative matter. It establishes a new governance framework for executive
compensation and alters the balance of authority between the Council and the City Manager. Such a policy change
deserves public discussion and deliberation as a regular business item rather than approval through the consent process.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed amendment and maintain the current system in
which compensation policy is established by the Council and deviations from that policy are considered through a
transparent public process.
If the Council wishes to address specific compensation concerns, including those involving the Police Chief, it can do so
directly without restructuring the City's executive compensation framework.
Thank you for your consideration.
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
2