Kane County state's attorney says end-of-year payments aren't bonuses
Kane County Board members upset about bonus payments to some county employees learned Wednesday they can't stop them or easily track the payments.
The information came as the board attempted to change county financial policies to bring more transparency to the payments. A memo from State's Attorney Joe McMahon reinforced an earlier statement he made about elected officials having full control over how they compensate their employees. The board can set only a salary number for a department; elected officials decide how much to pay each employee.
McMahon said he will continue paying employee bonuses because he doesn't see them as bonuses. They are lump-sum salary payments that come at the end of the year, he explained.
McMahon doesn't always implement raises at the start of the year. He takes money budgeted by the board for department raises and matches it with any cash freed up by running his office under his operational budget to calculate year-end employee salaries.
His latest memo reflects that practice in telling the board it can't force elected officeholders to label the payments as bonuses.
The memo inflamed tensions between McMahon and county board Chairman Chris Lauzen, who lost trust in McMahon following his ruling that the chairman illegally spent taxpayer money and improperly hired an outside law firm while in pursuit of new ways to bring income to the county. Lauzen believes the ruling came only because he decried the bonuses McMahon paid.
The lump-sum resolution McMahon shot down Wednesday was an effort at transparency, Lauzen said.
"It's the idea that we let folks know what's going on with these payments," Lauzen said. "It had nothing to do with saying to any countywide elected official anything about what they can and can't do. We pared it back to just a communication tool. I have no idea how that would be objectionable to anyone who works for Kane County taxpayers."
McMahon said it's not about anything being objectionable; it's about what Lauzen and the board have the authority to force other elected officials to do, or not do, under existing law.
The county board will take another shot at crafting a resolution to create a more clear accounting of the payments. Joe Onzick, the county's finance director, said he doesn't need any change in policy to track the payments. A rule change that forced department heads to add a notation in the county's payment ledger explaining what the payment was for would help the board budget for the year.
"We know when they are making the payments; we just don't know what they are for," Onzick said. "There are some board members who don't like these bonuses. We want to give everyone an opportunity to clearly explain what (the payment) is for and not jump to any conclusion."