Gann’s State Pay Cap Labeled a ‘Nightmare’

From the moment tax fighter Paul Gann began toying with the idea of a ballot initiative to limit the salaries of public officials, it was clear he would face a tidal wave of opposition.

On Tuesday, just a month after his measure qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, the wave hit with a vengeance.

“This is a slap in the face of schools and of government in general,” charged state school Supt. Bill Honig, who told a legislative hearing that Gann’s proposal is “crazy” and likely to cripple educational reform programs.

“A nightmare of ambiguity,” Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp declared of the measure, contending that the plan was so poorly drafted that it would take years of court rulings to even determine which employees it would affect.

For example, witnesses said it was unclear whether the proposition would apply only to elected and top-level government officials or to civil servants at the state, county and municipal levels.

The hearing, conducted by the Senate and Assembly fiscal committees, was the first of many scheduled for cities throughout the state as top government officials and business leaders begin circling the wagons for what is likely to be one of the hardest fought measures on the general election ballot.

Single Theme

In pointed testimony, witnesses representing such diverse interests as the University of California medical schools and the California Chamber of Commerce voiced a single theme: The measure would prompt many top-level managers to leave their government jobs for higher paying posts in private industry and, in the end, render crucial government services to a state of mediocrity.

Gann, clearly outnumbered and under siege, testified only briefly, telling lawmakers: “Nobody has mentioned the person who pays the bills, no one has mentioned the taxpayers out there working their tails off to pay these salaries.”

Gann, who has shaken California government with several successful ballot measures--including Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that slashed property taxes--this time has crafted a proposal to set the governor’s salary at $80,000 per year and allow all other elected or appointed officials in state and local governments to earn no more than 80% of that, or $64,000 annually.

Those salaries could increase only with a vote of the public or a finding by a difficult-to-achieve two-thirds of the Legislature that “special circumstances” dictate that a particular official receive more.

The initiative also would abolish accumulation of sick leave and of vacation time for many public employees and severely limit the amount of money that could be paid to private firms on contract to government agencies.

Held in a Capitol hearing room overflowing with lobbyists, the session illustrated the high stakes involved in the fight over the Gann measure.

Most elected officials throughout the state earn far less than the $64,000 annual limit advocated by Gann. However, many middle and top-level managers of state and local government agencies earn far more than the proposed limit. Moreover, no one is certain whether the limits would apply to benefits such as medical insurance and retirement as well as salaries.

James Mosman, director of the state Department of Personnel Administration, said that if the measure’s limits were applied to salary only, 2,440 state employees, or 1.7% of the state work force, would immediately find themselves up against the salary limit. If benefits were included, that number would rise to nearly 7,000 employees.

On the local level, the effects could be even more widespread. Police chiefs in 43 California cities and sheriffs in 17 California counties, for example, already earn more than the $64,000 limit. Among them are the top law enforcement officers in the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego and the Orange County sheriff.

“The impact on public safety and the lost expertise if senior investigators and administrators leave is virtually beyond calculation,” Van de Kamp said.

Similarly, Dr. Kenneth Shine, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, said that nearly every physician on the faculty is paid well above the $64,000 limit. If the measure passes, he warned, “We would only be able to recruit the most mediocre individuals.”