During the Sept. 10 Indian River County Commission meeting, board members weighed in on salary increases for County Administrator John Titkanich and County Attorney Jennifer Shuler.
An internal audit found that Titkanich had approved a $15,000 salary increase for himself without taking it to the board, prompting broader discussion about how county officers’ pay is handled. Shuler, approaching her one-year contract anniversary Sept. 16, also requested a progressive pay increase.
“Under the county’s administrative manual, all employees are entitled to an annual progressive pay increase, which is based on satisfactory performance,” Shuler said. “It is my opinion that the spirit and intent of the language of my contract is to grant me the same progressive pay increase that is available to other county employees.”
Shuler said the clerk of court, who serves as auditor of county funds, disagreed with her interpretation and pointed to clearer language in other contracts. The two agreed to bring the issue before commissioners.
“Despite the clerk’s opinion, I still think that my original interpretation of the spirit and intent of my contract is reasonable, but I welcomed the opportunity to resolve any doubts or ambiguities,” Shuler said.
She argued that the evaluation process used for other employees does not fit her role, since she has no direct supervisor. Shuler added that county officers were historically evaluated annually under one-year contracts, but the shift to three-year contracts has created a gap.
“These three-year contracts are not really catching up with an ability to go through some sort of process with county officers,” she said.
She requested an amendment to create a formal annual review process for her pay.
Commissioners then weighed in. Commissioner Joseph Earman said he was conflicted. Vice Chair Deryl Loar and Chair Joseph Flescher opposed making any contract adjustments.
“I’m not on the fence at all. I don’t believe that it’s appropriate at this time to readjust the contract and give a progressive pay increase,” Flescher said.
Commissioner Susan Adams disagreed.
“I think that today, what we are being asked, truly, is that do we believe that the attorney, like every other employee in the organization, should be able to avail themselves of an anniversary increase,” she said. “It’s an increase every other employee in this organization gets.”
Adams said both the administrator’s and attorney’s contracts affirm that officers are entitled to benefits afforded to other employees. Moss supported her view, saying the board should not delay the matter.
Flescher and Loar maintained that both officers agreed to their contracts and had time to raise objections.
Adams called a motion to approve the addendum with an annual review on the contract anniversary. It passed 3-2, with Flescher and Loar opposed.
The commission then turned to Titkanich’s raise. In a prepared statement, he emphasized that his decision was not unilateral.
“In hindsight, I don’t disagree with what Commissioner Earman said as it relates to process-wise, it would have been better to be brought to the board,” Titkanich said. “In all instances, this was documented in email. That was by purpose, there were no conversations that were not informed. There was no attempt to conceal this.”
He added: “I am respectfully requesting that the board approve my progressive pay increase, because I do and did, operated on the assumption, that after I read the contract, and it was clear to me that my interpretation, that the rights and benefits that were available to other employees were available to me.”
Earman asked how much Titkanich had earned so far under the raise. The clerk reported $6,520.06, with about $2,000 more since that evaluation.
Earman proposed approving Titkanich’s contract update under three conditions: that no self-initiated pay raises occur again, that the funds already paid be returned, and that his increase begin Oct. 1.
Loar criticized Titkanich, saying he had yet to apologize.
“One of the most disturbing things that I haven’t heard is that ‘I’m sorry,’” Loar said. “We’re owed an apology.”
Adams defended Titkanich, saying he would have brought the matter forward if commissioners had raised concerns earlier.
“If any commissioner had indicated that this was a problem in their one-on-one briefing, I guarantee you, based on the political climate in this county for the past year, it would have been put on an agenda,” she said.
Flescher disagreed, arguing the board was not fully informed. Accounts of past discussions varied, with Adams and Earman recalling them, while Loar and Flescher said they did not.
“I don’t want the public to believe this was discussed and everyone gave the nod,” Flescher said.
A motion to approve Titkanich’s contract amendment and pay increase passed 3-2, with Flescher and Loar again in opposition.