CCP 04-19-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

eonstitute part of an overall employee compensation program, For instance, Minn. Stat. S 412.111 states that "The council may prescribe the duties and fix the compensation of all officers, both appointive and elective, employees, and agents, when not otherwise prescribed by law,l' . The Attorney General has taken a very narrow interpretation of the term "compensation," and has suggested that the term means only monetary compensation, However, the common usage of the term certainly has meanings beyond just money. Webster's 3'd International Dictionary defines the term to include "payment for services rendered," Webster's further defines payment as "something given to discharge a debt or obligation or to fulfill a promise." Even the State Publie Employee Compensation statute seems to imply that "compensation" includes more than just money, For instance, Minn, Stat. S 43A.17, Subd. 9, states that compensation includes "all other direct and indireet items of compensation, , ," Accordingly, if an employee recognition award is truly an expected term of thc contract of employment, we believe a good faith argument can be made to support it being a valid form of compensation. In order to meet the "public purpose" and "authority" and to be considered part of the employee compensation package, a city should: I. Take formal action to adopt a program, preferably well in advance of any actual expenditures, using language that specifies that the program is adopted as "additional compensation" for work performed by the employees; 2. Develop a well thought out and modestly priced system that applies to all employees who meet certain conditions. For example, "all employees who reach 25 years of serviee will . receive a plaque, thanking them for their additional dedicated years of service to the community." Employee Events (e.g., holiday parties and summer picnics) The OSA's report critieized Brooklyn Park for amounts spent on an annual holiday party and an annual employee picnic, The Auditor also questioned amounts spent on food for employee meetings. The Auditor concluded that the expenditures did not further a public purpose and recommended that the eity discontinue expending public funds for employees' social events. The OSA's report relied on an Attorney General's opinion from 1966, finding that "Any public benefit that might result from the proposed soeial event is too remote and speculative to justify this expenditure as being one for a public purpose." With regard to both the Auditor and Attorney General's view, we offer a couple of observations. First, as discussed above, the question of whether a public purpose is served by expenditure of this nature, is largely a matter properly left to the discretion of individual city councils. As discussed at the beginning of this memo, the concept of public purpose is an evolving coneept that can change over time. Perhaps in 1966 the idea of expending city resources on events designed to promote a happy and productive work force, was not seen as a reasonable employment practice. However, in today's work environment, most human resouree professionals would agree that employee job satisfaetion, and ultimately productivity, depends on more than just the salary an employee receives from their employer. All employee benefits are basically a form of employee compensation that, like all other forms, are designed to attract, . 4