Conflict of interest question raised, dismissed in Linn salary vote

Conceding the optics weren't the best, most Linn County supervisors nonetheless agree there wasn't a conflict of interest inthis week's vote that raised salaries for some county officials.

The issue arose over Assistant County Attorney Gary Jarvis' advice to supervisors they had to give a straight up-or-down vote to the compensation board's salary recommendation for the fiscal year starting July 1.

The compensation board, volunteers appointed by the supervisors and other elected officials, recommended a one-time $10,000 adjustment for County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden and Sheriff Brian Gardner on top of a 4-percent salary increase - an 11-percent increase for Vander Sanden, 12.7 percent for Gardner.

The board recommended 4.5-percent raises for the supervisors and other elected officials.

On Wednesday, the supervisors voted 3-2 to cut the recommended raises by 50 percent across the board. Republicans Brent Oleson and John Harris split from the Democratic majority, with Oleson arguing to eliminate the $10,000 adjustment, then address the recommended salary increases separately.

Jarvis advised the supervisors state law required them to consider the salary recommendation as a single issue - they couldn't strip the adjustment from the rest of the recommendation.

The board's final vote gave Jarvis and Vander Sanden 5.5-percent raises, worth about $6,630 to Jarvis. Oleson said that may add up to a conflict of interest.

"I asked every one of the board members, and they thought I was being melodramatic," said Oleson, of Marion.

Oleson, an attorney, disagreed with Jarvis' interpretation of the state code. He said some of the other attorneys he consulted agreed with him, but they didn't want to be publicly involved.

Supervisor Ben Rogers, D-Cedar Rapids, said Jarvis didn't advise supervisors how to vote on the proposed salaries, only on the question of separating the salary-adjustment recommendation.

Jarvis declined to comment.

"I believe we got an unbiased legal opinion," said Rogers.

"It's not a conflict of interest when you're just helping the board with an interpretation," said Vander Sanden, Jarvis' boss. "The actual policy decision on whether you cut he recommendation of the compensation board was a board decision. I draw a distinction between interpreting a statute, which is purely a legal decision, not a recommendation for action."

It's Jarvis' job to advise supervisors on civil legal issues, said Vander Sanden, who'd requested a 4-percent salary increase from the compensation commission.

"Otherwise, you'd have a ludicrous, unworkable outcome," he said. "All 99 county attorneys would have to seek outside legal advice."

Kristi Harshbarger, legal counsel for the Iowa State Association of Counties, said she agreed with Jarvis' interpretation and that his advice wasn't a conflict of interest.

"It's a little interesting (the compensation board) chose to do it that way, but I guess both the $10,00o and the wage are a compensation issue," Harshbarger said. She said the question was settled in a 1989 Iowa Supreme Court decision - one involving Linn County.

"If the supervisors decrease compensation, they have to it by equal percentages for everybody," Harshbarger said.

Harshbarger said supervisors in other counties have raised the conflict-of-interest question when dealing with salary recommendations.

"I get lots of compensation board calls, and sometimes I think this is the reason but I always tell them the county attorney is your attorney," she said. "The statutes are designed for the county officials to be involved in this process."

Just to be sure, Rogers said he's seeking an attorney general's opinion on the conflict-of-interest question.