DRAFT


STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building

1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, May 5, 2022
*This meeting was a remote meeting under Section 92-3.7, Hawaii Revised Statutes.


PRESENT:
Kaimana Barcarse, Chairperson
Shanty Asher, Vice Chairperson
Bill Arakaki
Lyla Berg
Lynn Fallin
Kili Namauʻu
Catherine Payne
Kenneth Uemura
Bruce Voss


EXCUSED:
None


ALSO PRESENT:
Keith Hayashi, Interim Superintendent, Department of Education
Sean Bacon, Interim Assistant Superintendent, Office of Talent Management, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary





  1. Call to Order


Committee Chairperson Kaimana Barcarse called the Human Resources Committee (“Committee”) Meeting to order at 11:03 a.m.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse announced that he and Committee Members Lynn Fallin and Kenneth Uemura were participating in the meeting remotely. Committee members did not have others present with them at their nonpublic locations to announce. Committee Vice Chairperson Shanty Asher and Committee Members Bill Arakaki, Lyla Berg, Kili Namauʻu, Catherine Payne, and Bruce Voss participated from the public location.

II. Public testimony on Human Resources Committee (“Committee”) agenda items


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for public testimony.


Susan Pcola-Davis, member of the public, testified on agenda item IV.C. on compensation adjustments for Department of Education (“Department”) leadership employees, effective July 1, 2021, using performance evaluation ratings for School Year 2020-2021. She stated that the memorandum outlines the historical inconsistencies and expressed concern for the inflated increases for performance outcomes, which takes advantage of the additional general funds.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2022


Committee Chairperson Barcarse asked Committee members to review the minutes of the Committee’s February 17, 2022 meeting.


Committee Member Namau‘u moved to approve the Committee’s meeting minutes of February 17, 2022. Committee Member Payne seconded.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse asked if there were any objections to the motion. No Committee member raised objections, and the motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


ACTION: Motion to approve the Human Resources Committee meeting minutes of February 17, 2022 (Namau‘u/Payne). The motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present.

IV. Recommendation for Action


Committee Chairperson Barcarse referred to his memorandum with a recommendation on a salary structure and process for compensation adjustments for Department of Education (“Department”) leadership employees.


Committee Member Payne moved to adopt the Department leadership salary structure attached as Exhibit A to Committee Chairperson Barcarse’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022. Committee Member Berg seconded.


Committee Member Arakaki stated that the second paragraph on page 9 states “Further, making exact salaries for Department leadership positions public would add transparency and accountability,” and that he would like to ask the Department for input regarding providing the actual salaries for Department leadership positions.

Keith Hayashi, Interim Superintendent, expressed appreciation to the Committee for recognizing the importance of senior leadership and their efforts to support schools, families, and communities. He explained that for the Department to be able to attract the best and brightest in our communities, it must offer competitive salaries for leadership positions. Hayashi stated that regarding Committee Member Arakaki’s question, previously the Board discussed salary ranges in executive session. He asked for clarification of whether the Board would discuss specific salaries at its meetings.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse explained that other state agencies make specific salary information publicly available and doing so for the Department’s high-level leadership positions will provide more transparency. Hayashi expressed concern that there would be confidentiality issues if the Department shared the actual salary information for leadership positions. Committee Member Payne reminded the Committee that Civil Beat publishes an article every year that lists the exact salaries of state employees by position numbers, therefore, confidentiality should not be an issue for any state employees.

Committee Member Uemura stated that salaries are not confidential and that the Board and public should know the salaries of Department leadership. He asked for clarification about concerns expressed by Hayashi relating to confidentiality for affected personnel.

Hayashi stated that the superintendent’s salary information is public. He expressed concern that if the Department makes the specific salaries public, then anyone could figure out personnel evaluation ratings for each leader based on compensation increases.

Committee Member Uemura stated that the public will want to know the performance results of the Department’s leaders and because the Department uses state funds to pay for these salaries, the Board should not shield this information.

Hayashi reiterated concern for the Department’s leadership employees and noted that there is an obligation to maintain confidentiality of personnel evaluations.

Committee Member Uemura stated that the structure provides information so the Board and public would know the evaluation rating and determine what adjustments it needs to make. He also stated that the Board evaluates the superintendent in public and that the Board needs to be consistent and careful on what information is being required with the proposed salary structure. Hayashi stated that other Department leadership positions did not have this understanding when accepting their respective positions and that the Department would need to make their specific salary information public. He noted that Department leadership is very clear on their roles supporting school communities. Committee Member Uemura stated that the Board would take the concerns shared into consideration and asked Committee Member Arakaki to share his thoughts as a former Complex Area Superintendent (“CAS”). Committee Member Arakaki stated that as a former CAS the structure is in place to provide specific salary information and expressed understanding of transparency issues. He stated that the public can and will figure out if anyone in the Department’s leadership does not receive a high performance rating. Committee Member Arakaki asked how the superintendent could provide and ensure confidentiality regarding performance evaluations going forward. Committee Member Uemura asked why the specific salary information needs to be confidential, because the public knows the performance rating for any assistant superintendent or CAS. He expressed understanding of the concerns raised and going forward the Board needs to find a way to address those concerns. Committee Member Voss expressed appreciation for the work on the salary structure and noted that the memorandum is a model of what a memorandum to the Board should look like and the kind and level of information it should provide. He clarified that the Committee is not suggesting that the Department make leadership performance evaluations public and expressed support for the recommendation, which will provide discretion. Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Board and the public would determine the basis for the evaluation decision. Hayashi emphasized that the Department does not intend to shield information from the public and understands the need to be held fully accountable because it is the superintendent’s responsibility is to ensure that leadership is performing satisfactorily. He reiterated concerns about providing specific salary amounts publicly. Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Committee is solutions oriented and willing to work with the Department.

Committee Member Fallin expressed appreciation for the memorandum and asked if the Department is using the excluded managerial compensation plan evaluation tool or the evaluation tool developed by former superintendent Christina Kishimoto.
Committee Member Fallin expressed concern with the evaluation tool used by Kishimoto because it is broad and aligned to the previous strategic plan. She stated that the previous tool has a mid-year and annual evaluation, but without establishing the goals or objectives it is hard to determine what is being evaluated.

Committee Member Fallin asked for clarification on the following: (1) what performance evaluation tool will the superintendent use; (2) are the current position descriptions for Department leadership tied to the evaluation; and (3) who does the evaluations for the CASs.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse explained that the methodology proposed provides the superintendent with the ability to choose and evolve the proper tools for evaluating his leadership team. He emphasized that it is important for the Board to be aware at the beginning and end of the process, what evaluation tool the superintendent will use.

Hayashi clarified that the evaluation tool he currently uses is the same one Kishimoto used. He stated that he has personally completed the evaluations for the Deputy, Assistant Superintendents, and CASs. Hayashi asked Committee Member Fallin to repeat the second question.


Board Member Fallin asked which position descriptions Hayashi is using to evaluate leadership because this information should be included in the evaluation so that the Board knows whether the employee is fulfilling their responsibilities. She noted that it is up to the superintendent to determine what instrument he uses to evaluate leadership. Hayashi replied that the Department would include the position description.


Committee Member Fallin moved to amend the main motion by adding a second sentence to section IV.D of the proposed Department leadership salary structure that states, “The report annually shall also include the copy of the current evaluation instrument being used and the current position descriptions of those affected.” Committee Vice Chairperson Asher seconded.

Board Member Arakaki expressed support for transparency and encouraged the Department to communicate this information to the leadership positions that will be affected. He stated that the Department needs to ensure that current Assistant Superintendents and CASs understand the process.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the superintendent would provide this information to the affected employees and that the superintendent would determine the evaluation instrument.

Committee Member Uemura stated that in 2016 evaluations of Department leadership did not align to the requested compensation increases. He stated that position descriptions are important when hiring an employee, but when determining performance, the focus should be on goals.

Committee Member Uemura stated that the Board should allow for flexibility and provide the superintendent with the ability to design leadership evaluations, determine performance, and make adjustments, as necessary. He expressed support for Committee Member Fallin’s comments that the Board needs to get comfortable with the evaluation tool Hayashi is using to make sure it aligns with the Department’s and Board’s goals.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse clarified that the Board is not trying to micromanage the evaluation process but would like to ensure that the Board has the necessary information.

Committee Member Berg stated that Committee Member Fallin’s question regarding what evaluation tool Hayashi is using shows that the Board wants the system to succeed and that the current system does not acknowledge good leadership actions. She noted that evaluations allow collaboration to improve.

Committee Member Barcarse reiterated that the methodology is not meant to be punitive.

Committee Member Voss stated that the methodology and structure sets the salary range for subordinates and if that if this is expected from employees, then the Department needs to pay competitive salaries. He emphasized that the methodology indicates that salaries can be adjusted, but the reality is that it will not be adjusted. Committee Member Voss asked if the proposed salary ranges in III.B. are enough to attract the right employees for Department leadership positions. Committee Chairperson Barcarse expressed appreciation for Committee Member Voss’ comments and asked that the Committee to vote on the proposed amendment that is on the floor before moving on to other issues.

Committee Member Uemura stated that he will be voting no and that he would like to propose his own amendment for consideration. Committee Member Fallin asked if she could withdraw her motion so that the Committee can consider Committee Member Uemura’s motion. Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Committee could table voting and continue discussions.

Committee Member Uemura expressed concerns with IV.A. “The superintendent shall annually evaluate the performance of subordinate superintendents using an evaluation instrument of the superintendent’s choosing that sets the performance expectations for each subordinate superintendent.” He proposed adding, “The evaluation instrument used by the superintendent to evaluate performance should be reviewed and approved by the Board to ensure this aligns to Board goals for consistency and fairness.”

Committee Member Fallin expressed support for the amendment to systematize the process but cautioned that this is a shift in terms of the Board’s role because the evaluation instrument is not approved by the Board. She emphasized the importance of alignment to the Board’s goals and asked where in the process this would take place. Committee Member Fallin noted that the process should provide clarity, transparency, and fairness so that the superintendent evaluates each position in the same way and that the individuals the superintendent evaluates understand expectations.

Committee Member Uemura suggested adding that the evaluation instrument used by the superintendent should align with the Department’s and Board’s goals for consistency and fairness. Committee Member Fallin expressed agreement with the proposal.

Committee Vice Chairperson Asher expressed agreement with providing support, clarity, and transparency to the evaluation process. She expressed concern on the expansion of the Board’s role and supported the amendment.


Committee Member Fallin withdrew her motion. Committee Chairperson Barcarse asked if there was any objection to withdrawing the motion. There were no objections, and the motion was withdrawn. Committee Member Asher withdrew her second to the amendment.


Committee Member Uemura moved to amend the main motion by adding a second sentence to section IV.A of the proposed Department leadership salary structure that states, “The evaluation instrument used by the superintendent to evaluate performance should align with Department and Board goals for consistency and fairness.” Committee Vice Chairperson Asher seconded.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the subsidiary motion to amend the main motion. The subsidiary motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


Committee Member Voss asked if the proposed salary ranges are sufficient to attract high quality personnel to the Department. Hayashi replied that the current salary ranges do not adequately meet the needs of the Department’s leadership and increases could be addressed in the next several years through the collective bargaining process.

Hayashi emphasized that compensation should remain competitive in order to attract and retain qualified personnel and that he is aware that some personnel are considering returning to the school level due and that compensation is a factor.

Committee Member Voss agreed and stated that the superintendent needs to assemble a team and since the legislature is addressing teacher salary compression issues, it is a matter of fairness. He asked, based on previous experience, what changes Hayashi is recommending to the salary ranges.

Hayashi recommended that salary increases start at 5% per year.

Committee Member Voss stated that III.B. sets salary parameters and he would like to know if the proposed salary ranges need specific adjustments. Sean Bacon, Interim Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Talent Management stated that the proposed salary range would increase each of the salary ranges by five percent.

Committee Member Voss stated that any individual salary increases going forward will be subject to Board approval and noted that the salaries need to be competitive. He asked if the Board increases the ranges by $10,000, whether this would this help to address concerns with attracting qualified personnel. Bacon replied that the increasing the ranges would help the Department with its recruitment efforts for leadership positions.

Committee Member Berg asked how the current salary ranges compare to other states. Bacon replied that he does not have the information available, but the Council of the Great City Schools issued a report that noted that many districts are looking at salary increases to retain employees for all levels.

Bacon stated that if the Board would like to be competitive, increasing the salary range would help. He suggested that the Department review the available information and make a recommendation to the Board.

Committee Vice Chairperson Asher asked if a principal is thinking about applying for a complex area superintendent position, what information should the principal consider regarding salaries and expanded roles.

Bacon replied that the scope is narrow and those interested need to understand that the complex area position works at the will of the superintendent, therefore job security is a factor to consider since a complex area superintendent is an at-will position.

Committee Vice Chairperson Asher noted that the salary range differences are a lot to consider for potential candidates. Bacon replied that the minimum salary is $145,000 for entry-level positions and those in the middle level will bring their current salary amounts when transitioning to the complex area superintendent position. Committee Vice Chairperson Asher stated that it appears that the position retains the same salary, has more responsibilities, and less job security.

Committee Member Arakaki shared that as a former CAS in his complex area, eight principals made more money than and emphasized that everyone needs to help recruit and retain good personnel.

Hayashi stated that moving from school principal to CAS is a huge responsibility because principals work with communities and will leave the school. He expressed appreciation to the Board for considering the role leadership plays relating to compensation.

Committee Member Uemura stated that experience is factored into compensation and in 2016, the Department hired a consultant to conduct a market study, which the Department did not present to the Board. He noted that when the Board asked about the study, the Department’s response was that it was going to do the market study in-house. Bacon stated that he would follow up on the market study.

Committee Member Uemura stated that when doing the study it is important to know the monetary value attached to each position and emphasized that the Board cannot act on information that the Department does not provide. Bacon replied that he would look and provide more information.

Committee Member Fallin asked when the Department adopted the current position descriptions for CAS and assistant superintendents. She stated that the Board and Department need to consider the position descriptions when thinking about compensation and that if the position descriptions are not current, the Department should update this information. Hayashi replied that the Department would check and get back to the Board about when it last updated the position descriptions.

Committee Member Fallin asked when the Department developed the principal positions descriptions because when the Department changes one position description, the change affects others. She urged the Department to consider this and update the principal position description if it was not done recently. Hayashi replied that the Department would need to check and get back to the Board as to when the Department last updated the positions described.

Committee Member Berg asked if the Board could defer its decision until the Department can provide more specific numbers to the Board.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Committee could consider deferral, but that he would like to hear from other members. He also noted that the Board could always make changes to the document in the future.

Committee Member Voss stated that the Board should send a strong message to the Department’s leadership team about the Board’s efforts to remain competitive with compensation and salary pay rates. He stated that the Department could adjust salaries at this time if they do so consistently with the proposed recommendation.


Committee Member Voss moved to amend the main motion by increasing the salary ranges under section III.B of the proposed Department leadership salary structure by five percent. Committee Member Payne seconded.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the subsidiary motion to amend the main motion. The subsidiary motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


Committee Member Uemura moved to amend the main motion by changing section IV.B of the proposed Department leadership salary structure to read (language to be removed is stricken and language to be added is underlined): “Subordinate superintendents who meet performance expectations as determined by the performance evaluation are eligible for a minimum performance-based salary adjustment equal to the Hawaii Consumer Price Index rate for the same year applicable to the performance evaluation as determined by the superintendent in consultation with the Human Resources Committee Chairperson or their designee. In determining the minimum performance-based salary adjustment, the superintendent and the Human Resources Committee Chairperson, or their designee, shall consider various market factors, including the Hawaii Consumer Price Index, average Hawaii salary increase rates, and collective bargaining raises of other Department employees.” Committee Member Voss seconded.


Committee Member Voss stated that the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) includes volatile items (like food and energy) whose cost has increased due to the recent war in Ukraine and if the Board included these as the basis for salary adjustments, leadership salaries would exceed the broader employment community because of these volatile increases. He expressed support for the amendment and explained that many employers look at core CPI, which excludes volatile items, such as food and energy.

Committee Member Berg asked if the motion resembles the previous version. Committee Member Voss stated that the phrase “in consultation with the Human Resources Committee chairperson,” does not mean that the Board has decision-making authority. He asked for clarification on the expectation based on the amended language.

Committee Member Uemura stated that the Board is responsible for the budget and looking at salary increases since the Board has oversight and is responsible for setting leadership salaries. He stated that the Board needs to look at the total compensation package when making adjustments and various factors because if the Board uses the total CPI, then leadership salaries will be too high.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the salary compensation would be determined by the superintendent in consultation with the Human Resources chairperson.

Committee Member Berg asked if the Finance and Infrastructure Committee chairperson should be included because that person would have more information relating to the budget. Committee Member Uemura replied that all the committee chairpersons should have input and would have the opportunity to provide this input when the proposal comes to the Committee.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse restated the proposed motion which read that, “subordinate superintendents who meets performance expectations as determined by superintendent are eligible for a minimum performance based salary adjustment as determined by the superintendent in consultation with the Human Resources Committee chairperson or their designee, in determining the minimum performance based salary adjustment the superintendent or the Human Resources Committee chairperson or their designee shall consider various market factors including the Hawaii CPI, average Hawaii salary increase rates, and collective bargaining raises of other Department employees.”

Committee Member Fallin expressed support on the methodology and consultation with the Human Resources Committee chairperson but she does not want to lock the Board in on market rate adjustments for leadership salaries. She suggested that the Board consider various market factors. Committee Member Uemura replied that the language does not lock the Board in and provides flexibility.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the subsidiary motion to amend the main motion. The subsidiary motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


ACTION: Motion to adopt the Department leadership salary structure attached as Exhibit A to Committee Chairperson Barcarse’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022, as amended by the Committee. The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

B. Committee Action on compensation adjustments for Department leadership employees (Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents), effective July 1, 2020, using performance evaluation ratings for School Year 2019-2020


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called on Hayashi to present the recommendation on compensation adjustments for the deputy superintendent and assistant superintendents, effective July 1, 2020, using performance evaluation ratings for the 2019-2020 school year.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse explained that the compensation adjustments for Department employees would be effective July 1, 2020. He explained that the Department must provide fair salaries and that the Board deferred taking action on compensation adjustments for the deputy superintendent and assistant superintendent positions during its April 15, 2020 meeting. Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that with the improved economic and budget outlook, the Department is bringing the following recommendation to the Committee for consideration.


Committee Member Uemura stated that since the Board just approved the leadership compensation methodology, the Department’s recommendation for this agenda item is not in alignment with this methodology and that the Committee should not recommend approval of the Department’s recommendation.


Committee Member Uemura moved to defer action on the agenda item. The motion failed for the lack of a second.


Committee Member Payne moved to approve the compensation adjustments, retroactive to July 1, 2020, for the deputy superintendent and assistant superintendents who achieved a performance rating of at least three for the 2019-2020 school year, as described in Hayashi’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022. Committee Member Berg seconded.


Committee Member Payne reminded the Board that this is an outstanding item, that the discussion happened a couple years ago, and that it does not necessarily connect to the earlier action taken by the Committee.


Committee Member Uemura expressed appreciation for the clarification and understanding that the agenda item is a continuation of previous discussions so the salary structure does not apply to this agenda item. He also asked to reopen discussion on the motion. Committee Chairperson Barcarse agreed to reopen discussion on this agenda item.


Committee Member Uemura expressed confusion on some of the recommendations being made and asked how the Department came up with the proposed CPI and rounded it up.


Bacon explained that it has been the Department’s past practice to use CPI and the current rate is 1.9%, so it rounded that amount up to two percent.


Committee Member Uemura asked why the Department is using the 1.9% projection from September and noted that the CPI is not a rounded number. Bacon stated that the CPI the Department uses depends on the time period that the superintendent rates employees.


Committee Member Uemura asked if the rating period differs every year. Bacon replied that the performance evaluation rating period is from July 1 to June 30. Committee Member Uemura stated that the evaluation period will end in June every year, the CPI the Department uses must be consistent. Bacon stated that he would provide further information on when the information was pulled.


Committee Member Uemura expressed agreement if the amounts can be justified as 2% but if not if, the rate should be 1.3%. Committee Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Department would provide this information in the response to the Board.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, Uemura, and Voss).


ACTION: Motion to approve the compensation adjustments, retroactive to July 1, 2020, for the deputy superintendent and assistant superintendents who achieved a performance rating of at least three for the 2019-2020 school year, as described in Hayashi’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022 (Payne/Berg). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

C. Committee Action on compensation adjustments for Department leadership employees (Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and Complex Area Superintendents), effective July 1, 2021, using performance evaluation ratings for School Year 2020-2021


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called on Hayashi to present the recommendation on compensation adjustments for the deputy superintendent, assistant superintendents, and complex area superintendents, effective July 1, 2021, using performance evaluation ratings for the 2019-2020 school year.


Hayashi stated that fair and competitive salaries are essential to attract and retain employees and recommended the approval of retroactive adjustments. He stated that 12 employees scored three or better and that the total cost was no more than $125,000. Hayashi stated that the Department would account for the costs through central salary adjustments.


Committee Member Uemura moved to defer action on the agenda item. The motion failed for the lack of a second.


Committee Vice Chairperson Asher moved to approve the compensation adjustments, retroactive to July 1, 2021, for the deputy superintendent, assistant superintendents, and complex area superintendents who achieved a performance rating of at least three for the 2019-2020 school year, as described in Hayashi’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022. Committee Member Arakaki seconded.


Committee Member Voss stated that Board Member Uemura raised a valid point regarding compliance and the methodology, which needs to be applied going forward. He asked who did the evaluations that resulted in the recommended compensation adjustments.

Hayashi stated that former superintendent Kishimoto completed the performance evaluations for the deputy superintendent and assistant superintendents.

Committee Member Voss asked how many CASs received the highest rating. Bacon replied that eight CASs received the highest performance evaluation rating.

Committee Member Voss asked how many assistant superintendents received the highest rating. Bacon replied that four assistant superintendents received the highest performance evaluation rating.

Committee Member Voss noted that within both categories approximately half of the leadership received the highest performance evaluation rating.

Committee Member Uemura stated that the compensation adjustments total no more than $125,000 and asked what percentage is this of the amount of the total salaries of the 23 leadership positions. Bacon replied that he does not have the percentage amount, only the expected cost. Committee Member Uemura stated that you could divide $125,000 from the total salaries. Bacon replied that he would report on the amount.

Committee Member Uemura noted that the current CPI was as of May 2022 but the previous CPI was as of September. He requested that the Department provide the total amount.

Committee Member Fallin stated that this discussion is based on the availability of funding and asked how salary adjustments will be funded going forward.

Committee Chairperson Barcarse explained that the methodology was created in the event that there is an economic downfall and adjustments can be made.


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried with Committee Vice Chairperson Asher, Committee Members Arakaki, Berg, Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, and Voss voting aye and Committee Member Uemura voting nay.


ACTION: Motion to approve the compensation adjustments, retroactive to July 1, 2021, for the deputy superintendent, assistant superintendents, and complex area superintendents who achieved a performance rating of at least 3 for the 2019-2020 school year, as described in Hayashi’s memorandum dated May 5, 2022 (Asher/Arakaki). The motion carried with seven members voting aye and one member voting nay.

V. Late Public Testimony on Board Agenda Items


Committee Chairperson Barcarse called for public testimony from any individuals who did not have an opportunity to testify on earlier agenda items. No one provided oral testimony at this time.


Committee Member Fallin left the meeting at 1:30 p.m.


James Malish, member of the public, testified on agenda item IV.A. He stated that the Department is not doing a good job of listening to the basic science and emphasized that teachers should get bonuses.


Susan Pcola-Davis, member of the public, testified on agenda item IV.A. testified that during discussions relating to compensation the instrument being used is the same instrument that was used in 2019-2020, expressed concern for the compensation adjustment increases, and encouraged the Committee to listen to the statements of Committee Member Uemura.


Susan Pcola-Davis, member of the public, testified on agenda item IV.B. stating that the memorandum suggested that ratings be 2% and 3% but the Committee approved increasing salaries by 2%.


Susan Pcola-Davis, member of the public, testified on agenda item III. expressed frustration with the salary adjustments for the increases in performance appraisals, which will be an additional 2%.


Committee members received written testimony before the meeting. The following is a listing of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting.


Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Susan Pcola-Davis IV.A. Committee Action on salary structure and compensation adjustments for Department leadership employees (Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and Complex Area Superintendents); IV.B. Committee Action on compensation adjustments for Department leadership employees (Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents), effective July 1, 2020, using performance evaluation ratings for School Year 2019-2020; & IV.C. Committee Action on compensation adjustments for Department leadership employees (Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and Complex Area Superintendents), effective July 1, 2021, using performance evaluation ratings for School Year 2020-2021

VI. Adjournment


Committee Chairperson Barcarse adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m.