Port of Seattle's CEO doesn't want a raise
Full Disclosure: Gael Tarleton, who represents the people of King County on the Seattle Port Commission, is a member of NPI's Board of Directors.
Earlier today, I noticed that multiple media outlets had picked up on a media advisory issued yesterday by Puget Sound Sage (originally the Seattle Alliance for Good Jobs and Housing for Everyone), which was sent out with this eye-catching subject: Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani, second highest-paid public employee in state, poised to receive 4 percent raise while workers face layoffs, decreasing wages.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Publicola were among those that picked up on the Sage release, summarizing its contents and mentioning today's Port Commission meeting without bothering to dig deeper. I figured there was more to the story, since I've spent a not insignificant amount of time learning about the Port and how it operates. (I hear regularly from more than one commissioner, and not long ago, I actually participated in a Port retreat as an observer).
As it turns out, Puget Sound Sage failed to provide some important context to the reporters and bloggers that they reached out to with their release.
Specifically, they did not explain that the Commission is required — by Article II, Section B of the Port's bylaws — to evaluate the CEO's performance and salary annually, and to approve the CEO's objectives for the next year. This annual evaluation and review has taken place at the end of August the last few years.
The Sage release made it sound like the Commission is so happy with Yoshitani that they wanted to give him a raise, when in fact they were obligated to look at his salary — as well as his past performance and plans for the future — during this meeting. The release likewise made it sound like Yoshitani was quietly seeking a raise, when in fact he does not want one.
How do I know? Because prior to today's meeting, the CEO preemptively requested that the Commission not consider a salary increase for him today or at any future meeting within the next year. Yoshitani did the same thing in 2009 — this will be the second consecutive time he has explicitly asked that he not be given a raise.
It is true that Yoshitani could have been eligible for a raise — and was — because the Commission rated his performance as CEO "Outstanding". However, the Commission was not obligated to up Yoshitani's pay as a consequence of giving him high marks. (Commissioner John Creighton seemed to be under that impression; consequently, he abstained from the performance vote).
Sage could have found all this out if they had waited to comment, like I did, but they did not. About an hour after the Commission meeting had convened, they issued a new release declaring that "the pay raise vote had been canceled".
It included this cryptic paragraph:
So, contrary to what Sage suggested to reporters and editors, Port CEO Tay Yoshitani was not "poised" to receive a raise because he didn't want one.
It would have been nice of them to acknowledge that rather important fact.
POSTSCRIPT: The Seattle Times' Keith Ervin has written a solid, well-researched story about today's Port Commission meeting, which clearly explains that Yoshitani didn't want a raise. Kudos to the Times for providing that context, upfront. Erica Barnett has likewise followed up for Publicola.
Earlier today, I noticed that multiple media outlets had picked up on a media advisory issued yesterday by Puget Sound Sage (originally the Seattle Alliance for Good Jobs and Housing for Everyone), which was sent out with this eye-catching subject: Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani, second highest-paid public employee in state, poised to receive 4 percent raise while workers face layoffs, decreasing wages.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Publicola were among those that picked up on the Sage release, summarizing its contents and mentioning today's Port Commission meeting without bothering to dig deeper. I figured there was more to the story, since I've spent a not insignificant amount of time learning about the Port and how it operates. (I hear regularly from more than one commissioner, and not long ago, I actually participated in a Port retreat as an observer).
As it turns out, Puget Sound Sage failed to provide some important context to the reporters and bloggers that they reached out to with their release.
Specifically, they did not explain that the Commission is required — by Article II, Section B of the Port's bylaws — to evaluate the CEO's performance and salary annually, and to approve the CEO's objectives for the next year. This annual evaluation and review has taken place at the end of August the last few years.
The Sage release made it sound like the Commission is so happy with Yoshitani that they wanted to give him a raise, when in fact they were obligated to look at his salary — as well as his past performance and plans for the future — during this meeting. The release likewise made it sound like Yoshitani was quietly seeking a raise, when in fact he does not want one.
How do I know? Because prior to today's meeting, the CEO preemptively requested that the Commission not consider a salary increase for him today or at any future meeting within the next year. Yoshitani did the same thing in 2009 — this will be the second consecutive time he has explicitly asked that he not be given a raise.
It is true that Yoshitani could have been eligible for a raise — and was — because the Commission rated his performance as CEO "Outstanding". However, the Commission was not obligated to up Yoshitani's pay as a consequence of giving him high marks. (Commissioner John Creighton seemed to be under that impression; consequently, he abstained from the performance vote).
Sage could have found all this out if they had waited to comment, like I did, but they did not. About an hour after the Commission meeting had convened, they issued a new release declaring that "the pay raise vote had been canceled".
It included this cryptic paragraph:
Charla Skaggs, port corporate media officer for external affairs, said an evaluation of Tay’s job performance remained on the agenda but the subsequent pay raise agenda item was removed. When asked why, she said news reporters and members of the public would need to ask that question directly to commissioners.I suspect that Charla wasn't more forthcoming because the Commission was in the midst of a public meeting and had not yet gotten to the relevant agenda items, which were slated to be discussed near the end. The Port's bylaws require that the conversation about the CEO's performance, salary, and future plans must happen in public. By opting not to elaborate to Sage, Charla was honoring the Port's bylaws, and deferring to the popularly elected Commission, which governs the Port.
So, contrary to what Sage suggested to reporters and editors, Port CEO Tay Yoshitani was not "poised" to receive a raise because he didn't want one.
It would have been nice of them to acknowledge that rather important fact.
POSTSCRIPT: The Seattle Times' Keith Ervin has written a solid, well-researched story about today's Port Commission meeting, which clearly explains that Yoshitani didn't want a raise. Kudos to the Times for providing that context, upfront. Erica Barnett has likewise followed up for Publicola.
# Posted by Andrew : 4:37 PM
Comments:
I want to correct a small but important inaccuracy in the above post.
There is no requirement in the Seattle Port Commission's Bylaws that the Commission review the CEO's performance "annually", it just states that the Commission shall review his or her performance (as in that is one of the Commission's responsibilities but no hard time requirement). A quick check of your link will confirm this.
If there were such a requirement the Port Commission would have been in violation of its own bylaws in 2009. They never reviewed the CEO's performance in 2009, they never even calendared it because there was not majority support for raising the CEO's salary in the worst economic downturn in 80 years (again, a check of 2009 public meeting agendas will confirm this).
I just want to make sure the facts are straight - there was no legal or organizational bylaw requirement that Commission put a CEO salary increase on the agenda, either this year or last year.
The commissioners are running for cover now, looking for any excuse. But the simple fact is, it was put on the public meeting agenda because a majority of commissioners supported it.
Post a Comment