By Tim SchmidtRecord Managing EditorThe Warren County Commission has moved forward with a 3 percent pay raise for employees, but reversed its position on a cost-of-living increase for elected officials.That decision last Thursday was met with frustration from current officeholders who questioned and disagreed with the decision. A week earlier, two of the three commissioners had supported the compensation request for the elected officials.However, in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 approval, it was determined that a formal decision on proposed pay raises for non-elected employees needed to be made prior to any action on compensation for elected positions. Northern District Commissioner Dan Hampson said it was his intention that the Jan. 8 approval included both elected and non-elected county employees, but stated the motion was ambiguous and could be challenged.So that forced the commission to rescind the prior approval Jan. 15, followed by a 2-0 vote in favor of a 3 percent pay raise for non-elected employees. Presiding Commissioner Roger Mauzy abstained since his wife is employed in the sheriff’s department.The commissioners then voted unanimously to refer the proposed cost-of-living increase for elected officials back to the salary commission, which is comprised of all county officeholders and meets only in odd-numbered years per state statute. The group sets the base salaries for the county positions and will meet again in the fall.The cost-of-living increase was proposed for the three-member county commission, assessor, collector, county clerk, recorder of deeds, sheriff, treasure, coroner and public administrator. The last time the elected officials got a raise was in either 2007 or 2009, depending on the position.Both Mauzy and Hampson had supported the compensation proposal on Jan. 8, but changed their minds after reviewing other legal opinions. In the past week, the commission reviewed a legal opinion from Travis Elliott, who serves as counsel for the Missouri Association of Counties.At question is whether or not elected officials can receive a cost-of-living raise since a merit raise cannot be given in the middle of a term.“I am not real sure of any of the case laws,” Mauzy said. “I know I don’t want to get us into a jam in any way, shape or form. First of all, I am too new to get us in a jam. I don’t want to put us in a pickle this early in the game.He later added, “I’m not copping out on you guys, but I’m too new at this. I want to avoid any possible legal conflicts.”Many of the elected officials disagreed with the commissioners’ decision. They stated that the cost-of-living increases, sometimes referred to as a COLA, has been used in half of the counties in the state to increase salaries for elected officials mid-term. They also presented a 2006 ruling from the Western District Court of Appeals case involving Daviess County.They also noted that the salary commission, which last met Nov. 4, 2013, previously voted unanimously to recommend elected officials receive a cost-of-living raise at the same amount as non-elected employees.“I am pleased with the 3 percent for employees,” Sheriff Kevin Harrison told The Record. “That is priority No. 1. Obviously I am disappointed they are not addressing the elected officials. For most it’s been a long time. Life is getting more and more expensive every day and their salaries are staying flat.”Assessor Wendy Nordwald described the process used by the salary commission to give raises to elected officials as “broken.” By rejecting the cost-of-living increase, the next possible pay raise for elected positions may be in either 2017 or 2019. By then, that would be either 18, or in some cases 22 years, between raises.County raises: Yes for employees, no for elected officials