Pima County supervisors approve contract for new top administrator

The Pima County Board of Supervisors discussed on Tuesday the early retirement of former County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, who they recently learned had been drawing more than $12,000 in monthly pension benefits on top of his salary since July 2021.

The discussions ensued before the board officially approved the contract of Jan Lesher as the county’s new top administrator with a $260,000 annual salary, about $32,000 less than her predecessor.

Lesher has taken over Huckelberry’s roles since he suffered critical injuries in a bicycle accident in October. The former county administrator formally submitted his resignation April 4, and the board appointed Lesher to take over as county administrator April 5.

The key administration change comes after the supervisors were told by a Tucson Sentinel reporter that Huckelberry submitted his retirement to the Arizona State Retirement System in July and has since received a monthly pension of $12,228, according to the state retirement system.

On top of the pension payments, Huckelberry received his regular salary from the county, which totaled $114,110 from the date his retirement took effect on July 4, 2021, through his last paycheck issued April 15, according to county payroll records. The board accepted his resignation and terminated the former county administrator’s contract on April 5.

Huckelberry’s last paycheck totaled $9,815 for 80.8 hours of payout for his remaining vacation and sick leave and 31 hours of vacation used for his last week as county administrator.

Huckelberry questions

On Tuesday, Supervisor Steve Christy asked Lesher about who knew of Huckelberry’s retirement and who ensured it was carried out legally. Lesher said she knew about Huckelberry drawing his retirement benefits “sometime after July.”

She wrote in an April 15 memo to the board that the former county administrator instructed Monica Perez, his chief executive assistant, to work with the county’s Finance and Risk Management and Human Resources departments to “ensure compliance” with the state’s retirement system and that Huckelberry “instructed a limited number of staff to closely hold this information.”

The move of simultaneously receiving pension benefits and a regular salary is commonly referred to as “double-dipping,” and is allowed under state law in certain conditions.

State retirement system members can retire, return to work and continue to collect pension benefits if they work less than 20 hours a week after the 19th week of the fiscal year, which runs from July to June. That means the pension recipient can only work full time for 19 weeks of the fiscal year.

Huckelberry abided by this rule and received full-time compensation for 19 weeks, as required, and received compensation for 19-hour work weeks from his accrued time off thereafter.

In response to a request for all documents related to the retirement of Huckelberry, the county provided the Star with a “New Retirement Ending Payroll Verification Form,” which ASRS requires employers to fill out upon applications for retirement.

The form shows Elizabeth Mesa, listed as the county’s principal accountant, filled out the form, though the date it was submitted is not included.

Lesher clarified the county’s Human Resources and payroll departments knew of the retirement request Huckelberry submitted to ASRS, but that employees in those departments “adhere to a variety of standards of confidentiality regarding not only this employee but every employee.”

Lesher told the board that Huckelberry’s “concern, apparently, was that (the retirement) be done in accordance with all legal authority and with the adherence to his contract and his direction was to make sure that all was done legally” and that, to her knowledge, all legal and procedural requirements were met.

Christy, however, said the legality of the process is not the main concern.

“The issue, of course, is the fact that this caught this board and many others in Pima County completely by surprise,” Christy said. “We’re really not in a position where we’re talking about the legality or illegality of what Mr. Huckelberry did, we’re talking about how the process evolved, and what the result of his actions did as far as the transparency, the trust, where we can put our faith in our administrators and community leaders.”

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Lesher said she believes “there are issues related to each and every county employee for which the system was developed” and that “we are going to continue to maintain the strictest confidentiality regarding those employees.”

However, the new county administrator indicated there are already actions in the works to increase the transparency of county employment changes, including sending a report to each board member listing all changes in county employees’ work statuses.

“I am not in a position to go backward on what may have occurred under a different administration,” Lesher said. “I can tell you that what we are recognizing is where are the teachable moments that we can use to move a system forward and to provide, we hope, additional transparency for the public and for the board.”

Supervisor Adelita Grijalva said the board may have more culpability in the matter. When the board approved Huckelberry’s renewed contract in January 2021, it approved a clause in that contract that said: “If Employee retires as allowed by the Arizona State Retirement System, Employee can return to work as a contractor without any negation of the terms of this contract, including its length.”

“Do I agree that (Huckelberry’s retirement) is something that he should have communicated directly to us? Yes. But that is our responsibility, that wasn’t clearly articulated in his contract. And so that’s our fault,” Grijalva said. “Should he have told us? I think he should have. But is that something that was required explicitly? No. So I do think that’s a learning opportunity for us.”

Supervisor Rex Scott agreed “We should have been more explicit in the way that we crafted that contract,” adding that the way the supervisors were alerted to the news was less than ideal.

“It certainly is jarring to hear the news that Mr. Huckelberry had applied for his retirement benefits in July from a member of the media. I don’t think any of us were prepared for that nor did we appreciate it,” he said. “But the one person that we would like to ask about that situation is not here, and we’re not able to ask (Huckelberry) about it.”

Scott emphasized, however, that Huckelberry’s drawing of retirement benefits was carried out legally.

Supervisor Matt Heinz placed two items on the board’s agenda to prevent a stealth drawdown of retirement benefits from happening again. Both items failed.

Lesher said county administration will work with the county attorney’s office to draft a new policy for the board to review.

Lesher contract approved

The board voted 3-2 to approve Lesher’s contract as county administrator, formalizing the terms of her position and granting her a $260,000 annual salary — a 13% increase from her $231,000 salary as deputy county administrator. Supervisors Christy and Heinz voted no. Lesher’s contract runs through Jan. 7, 2025.

Lesher has worked for the county since 2011 and has served as the chief deputy county administrator since 2017. She previously worked as chief of staff for former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and as the director of the Arizona Department of Commerce.

Christy said he voted against the contract due to a lack of an adequate search process for Huckelberry’s replacement and that he preferred at least a one-year agreement “with a probationary period involved” instead of a four-year contract. “I think at this point, we need to have a new slate of leadership in the county administrator’s office,” Christy said. “I’m disappointed that there weren’t some more safeguards put in in that regard.”

Although Heinz didn’t explain his opposition to the contract at Tuesday’s meeting, he told the Star, “My objection to this contract is not a reflection in any way on Jan Lesher. I have 100% confidence in her. I did not like the total compensation package.”

“She has tremendous value to the county and we are lucky to get her. I just think that the compensation package should have more accurately reflected the value that she brings and should not have slashed compensation for the county administrator quite so severely,” Heinz said. “I believe it was an overcorrection in the wake of being basically bamboozled and kept in the dark by the last county administrator.”

Lesher’s contract, which puts her salary $32,000 below Huckelberry’s compensation at his resignation, also excludes some of the significant benefits he received. Unlike Huckelberry, Lesher won’t receive 240 extra hours of sick and vacation leave, an annual $15,000 contribution to a supplemental retirement savings plan account nor an annual $8,200 payment to a health savings account.

Lesher also won’t be able to return to work as a contractor, as the controversial clause on Huckelberry’s previous contract stated.