Compensation Board for Elected Officials - Feb. 24, 2026

Minutes

Members present:

• Aimee Smith
• Jennifer Justus

Guests present:

(none)

Staff Present:

• Nina M. Smith 
• Erin Braman
• Danielle Misché

Call to Order

Nina M. Smith, Classification & Compensation Manager, called the third Compensation Board for Elected Officials (CB) meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

Welcome and Introduction of Members

All members present.  

Classification & Compensation staff present include Nina M. Smith, Erin Braman, and Danielle Misché.

Recognition of Guests

No guests present. Review and Approve Meeting Discussion   The CB went off the record at 9:04 a.m. to review the meeting discussion summary (minutes) from February 17, 2026.  The CB went back on the record at 9:09 a.m.. Nina noted one administrative update in the minutes in the last paragraph on page 3 that HR staff will correct. Jennifer motioned to approve the minutes.  Aimee seconded. General Discussion

Nina stated that the follow-up items from last week’s meeting are the updated data sheets and the working guidelines’ methodology.  Danielle followed up regarding overtime eligibility positions and the County Clerk’s Elections Manager is eligible for straight overtime during election season and the Clerk is authorized to add uncompensated overtime to vacation time. No other second- in-command/highest level subordinate positions are eligible.

Nina would like the CB to confirm their methodology, review the updated data sheets, and then the CB will discuss internal alignment considerations.

Nina asked the CB to confirm the order of process:

1. Market
2. COLA
3. Internal Alignment

Decision: Aimee asked if they would like to have a threshold for market to say it’s aligned with market. Jennifer noted the CB should bring the position to the threshold within market and then apply a COLA because that is something the rest of Clackamas County staff will receive.

Decision: Jennifer noted that if you were aligning a classification to a salary grade, you typically align to the closest grade since the salary grades are about 5% apart. Therefore, it would make sense to align the CB recommendation with compensation for other employees in the county.  2.5% above or below the market would be reasonable since other CC employees’ recommendations are based off 5%.  Aimee agrees.

Aimee stated that applying the COLA after a market adjustment is likely similar to what other jurisdictions will receive.  Jennifer agrees that the COLA should be made after the market adjustment. 

Jennifer stated that internal alignment should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Nina stated past practice was 1% threshold for market before an adjustment is recommended. 

Aimee noted that changing the order of operation and looking at market first is acceptable because if a position is under market less than 2.5% but then receives a COLA it could still bring them up closer to market. 

Discussion for Elected Positions (Market and COLA):

Decision: Assessor - The two new data sheets provided have Clark County removed based on last week’s decision, with one data sheet that now includes Washington and Multnomah County, and one data sheet that only includes Washington County. Washington County has components of both the Assessor and the Clerk, so last week it was decided to add it to the data sheets for both elected officials. Multnomah County includes the joint role as Deputy Director of County Management. Jennifer noted that based on these additional responsibilities for Deputy Director role, she does not see Multnomah as a match. The CB noted that Including Washington County brings in a match from the Portland metro area. Aimee agrees.

Decision: Based on removing Clark County and adding Washington County, the Assessor is below 4.7%.  The CB discussed if the market adjustment, based on their new methodology, should bring the Assessor’s pay rate to market or to 2.5% below the market. Due to the new methodology, Jennifer noted she would recommend 4.7% to bring the position to market and 2.7% for COLA. Aimee agreed. The CB will review internal alignment later.

Decision: Aimee asked if the County departments must do a budget exercise with cuts. Nina noted that the budgets for internal services departments are capped at a 3.0% increase which includes 2.7% COLA for employees. Aimee asked if presenting a second option would be helpful to the Budget Committee.  The CB decided the second option for the Budget Committee could be bringing the position to 2.5% below market which remains within the determined 2.5% threshold.

Decision: The CB recommends 4.7% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA as option A and 2.2% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA as option B.

Clerk – Based on last week’s decision, Benton and Washington Counties were added to the data sheets. Before adding the new jurisdictions, the market was 9.8% below market and by adding the two other jurisdictions it brings the market to 26.5% below.  The CB noted overall solid matches. The CB recommends bringing the Clerk up to market.

Decision: Option A: 26.5% market adjustment plus 2.7% COLA
Option B: 24% market adjustment plus 2.7% COLA

Decision: Commissioner:  Last week, the CB removed Metro and added Deschutes County as matches. The Commissioner is 2.5% above market. Therefore, no market adjustment, nor option B, and the recommendation is 2.7% COLA.

Commissioner-Chair – Nina stated that currently the Chair receives a 2% add-to-pay and that the last few years the CB recommended an increase to 3%, but the BC has not approved the increase.

Jennifer noted having a Chair data sheet is not helpful since there is only one match with Washington County. Jennifer noted that recommending an increase to 3% still seems reasonable.

Decision: Aimee agrees that 3% add-to-pay is supported due to visibility and responsibilities.

District Attorney – Based on last week’s decision, Multnomah County was added to the data sheet. Nina noted that Multnomah County reported Staff Assistant as their second in command, but HR staff found they also have Chief DDAs and DDA First Assistants, but the EO determines the pay for their staff. The CB noted multiple good matches, including matches within the Portland metro area.

Decision: Currently the DA is 15.2% above market therefore no market adjustment, and the recommendation is 2.7% COLA.

Justice of the Peace: The CB discussed why they chose to not include Lane County as a match besides them being a part-time position. The CB determined Lane County does not require their Justice to be a member of the Oregon State Bar and they are within another department (County Administration) and not their own department. The CB noted that two matches including department oversight (Deschutes and Marion) and two matches do not (Multnomah and Washington).  However, in terms of the market comparables, that functionality was not recognized with higher compensation. 

Previously Justice of the Peace was 3.5% below the market without Marion County and now including Marion County, the Justice is 5.4% below market. 

Decision: The CB recommends 5.4% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA as option A and 2.9% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA as option B.

Decision: Sheriff:  Without Deschutes County, the Sheriff was 11.8% above market and by adding Deschutes County this year, the position is 10.2% above market.

The Sheriff is above market therefore no market adjustment, and the recommendation is 2.7% COLA.

Treasurer:  Marion County was removed because they are not performing cash recording nor cash reconciliations. Deschutes County was added as a match due to having similar functions.  With the removal of Marion County and adding Deschutes County as a match, Treasurer is 10.5% below market.

Decision: The CB recommends Option A: 10.5% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA;
Option B: 8% market adjustment and 2.7% COLA.

Decision: CB went off the record at 9:54 a.m. for a break. The CB went back on the record at 10:08 a.m. During the break, HR staff updated Document 7-Current Incumbent with Second in Command so CB could see the numbers associated with their recommendations of option A and option B.   Nina asked if the second in command sheet needed the last column which shows the spread between the Elected Official with deferred compensation and the second in command at the top of the salary grade with deferred compensation. Aimee noted it is not necessary because the CB does not focus on the salary range data and EO’s do not have salary ranges. Nina noted we will not have that column next year.

Discussion for Elected Positions (Internal Alignment):

The CB reviewed the second in command document that shows compression between the EO and the second in command if applicable.

The CB examined if other internal alignment factors were applicable such as among EO’s where Department oversight might be similar: management of operations, budget, supervisor/managerial responsibilities, etc.; alignment among elected positions.  

Jennifer said aligning Assessor and Clerk make sense because of similar scope. This is seen in the market. The others do not have similar comparability.

Assessor – No compression with second in command and within reasonable range of comparable EO’s. Confirmed recommendation of Option A/B plus COLA.

Clerk – No compression with second in command and within reasonable range of comparable EO’s. Confirmed recommendation of Option A/B plus COLA.

Commissioner – No compression, and typically lower than other EO’s. Confirmed recommendation of COLA.

District Attorney – No compression with second in command and no other factors applying to internal alignment. Confirmed recommendation of COLA.

Justice of the Peace – No compression with second in command and no comparability with other Clackamas County EO’s.  While the Justice of Peace is required to be a member of the Oregon State Bar, this requirement is not reflected as higher salary in the market compared to other elected officials. No reasonable factor to make any other adjustment. Confirmed recommendation of COLA.

Decision: Sheriff –  The Sheriff is 4.5% above two of three Undersheriff incumbents. The CB recommends a 0.5% adjustment for internal alignment. This is based on CB’s decision to make an adjustment if elected official’s pay rate including deferred compensation remains less than 5.0% in comparison with second in command. 

Treasurer – No compression with second in command and no comparable EO’s. Confirmed recommendation of Option A/B plus COLA.

Decision: Nina asked if doing market comparables every three years still makes sense.  The CB strongly agreed to the three-year cycle, unless new information is provided.

Nina confirmed the new methodology with the CB:

1. Market comparables – if within 2.5% below market no market adjustment; no adjustment if above.
2. COLA – same as approved for non-represented staff (which includes second in commands/highest level subordinates).
3. Internal alignment – 5% spread with second in command, if less than 5% make adjustment. Also includes consideration of internal alignment factors such as comparable EO’s.

Decision: Aimee motioned to approve the revised working guidelines and Jennifer seconded the motion.

Nina asked if the CB is comfortable meeting virtually next week after staff prepares the cover sheet, the recommendation document, and fiscal impact sheet.  Staff will also send out updated working guidelines and minutes from today’s meeting.  The CB agreed that would work.

Decision: Jennifer asked if there is something to call out in the presentation for the Budget Committee to help them absorb the information. Nina noted that she and Jennifer will meet and prepare a PowerPoint presentation prior to the recommendations being presented to the BC.   The presentation will address what compression is (salary range difference with EO and second in command).   Jennifer would like to include why the market was moved to the first prong in their recommendations, noting the CB is trying to move the work of the County forward. EO salaries are not for recruitment. Rather it is a factor when someone is choosing to run for an elected position, and it needs to be enough to have retention in the EO position.

Decision: Jennifer moved to approve the recommendations for Options A and B for all Elected Officials.  Aimee seconded the motion.

Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 10:51 a.m.

Upcoming meetings/events

• Comp Board Meetings (In-person & online via Zoom):
  • March 3, 2026 – 9am-12pm
• Compensation Board Recommendations presented to Budget Committee: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 (in-person)

Comp Board Handouts:

• Agenda
• Meeting Discussion Highlights from February 24, 2026
• Updated Working Guidelines
• Salary Recommendations Cover Sheet
• Compensation Board Recommendations
• Fiscal Impact Sheet

Audio recording is available upon request.