Housing chief's pay raises questions

By JACK REED

© St. Petersburg Times, published April 30, 2000

The Pinellas County Housing Authority board made a mistake when it gave director Helen Piloneo a 66 percent increase on her $73,839 salary.

First, there is the discrepancy between the size of Piloneo's responsibility and her compensation.

Piloneo's new annual salary of $122,634 makes her one of the highest paid public housing directors in the country, even though the Pinellas County authority is a relatively small operation. For example, the Miami-Dade Housing Authority (the nation's sixth-largest) has 729 employees to Pinellas' 79 and operates 10,500 housing units to Pinellas' 1,342, yet the Miami-Dade director is paid $111,748 (nearly $11,000 less than Piloneo).

Second, the housing authority has many needs to consider with its limited financial resources.

Recently, the authority was so far behind in preparing and renting housing units that it had to pay employees overtime to catch up. There are long waiting lists for public housing, and many of the authority's facilities need upgrading. In that setting, every dollar must be spent wisely.

Third, the size of the salary increase violated the authority's own rules, and no reasons were given to justify the extraordinary action.

The authority limits employee merit raises to a maximum 7 percent. Yet when the board gave Piloneo a 66 percent raise, it failed to explain why it chose to ignore the guideline. Asked what justified such a large salary adjustment, board chairman Herbert James said: "There's nothing specifically." Other housing authority employees likely will remember that flippant response when they are considered for raises.

All of that puts Piloneo in a tough spot (though many authority employees would probably trade places with her). Piloneo has served the housing authority well; she was the finance director for 18 years before being promoted in January 1999. But the size of her salary increase and the way it was given will make her job more difficult when it comes to evaluating employees and resolving pay issues.

The housing authority could have (and should have) handled the salary decision in a responsible manner that answered questions rather than raised them.

Was the board compensating Piloneo for handling the finance director's duties as well as the executive director's job until a new finance official could be hired? If so, the pay raise should have been a temporary increase tied to that double duty.

Was the board rewarding Piloneo for superior performance in the top job? If so, the board needed to explain (with specific examples) why it was going beyond the 7 percent limit placed on other employees.

Was the board deciding that the authority's pay range was inadequate for the executive director position? Apparently, that is why the board came up with the 66 percent increase. But wouldn't $122,634 be the top of the salary range at an agency the size of Pinellas County's? If so, Piloneo shouldn't be earning the highest salary after little more than a year on the job. The Pinellas County Housing Authority should have raised Piloneo's salary in smaller steps rather than one giant leap that invites controversy.

The housing authority board has created a problem that won't easily go away. Pinellas County residents are still awaiting a good explanation for the largesse. Most important, the board owes everyone an explanation of how its actions will aid rather than hinder the authority's primary duty: to provide affordable, high-quality housing to low-income families.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.