County Supervisors’ OK of 25% Boost in Their Salaries

I am writing in response to the 25% salary increase that was passed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for themselves. My reaction was more of disappointment than shock. My area is represented by Supervisor Thomas F. Riley and I consider him to be the best-qualified member of the board. I fail to understand his motivation in supporting this motion.

The comment attributed to Supervisor Roger R. Stanton regarding the lack of a sufficient opposition at the meeting, implied by default that the board had received a strong vote of confidence from the general public. I believe this could be considered political hyperbole. A merit increase in salaries could be justified on the standard of performance. However, in reviewing the problems that continue to exist in our county, I do not believe a 25% increase in salary is justified. Perhaps the rate of increase should be related to the average percentage increase for county employees in general.

The reference that the supervisors’ salaries should be similar to salaries paid to judges also lacks logic. A current article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal regarding the private sector business of judicial arbitration and its effect on luring judges from the courts to become employees in that field also cited movements by certain members of the Legislature and the judiciary to increase the salaries of municipal and superior judges from the $80,000 range to a $100,000 area.

Therefore, following the supervisors’ reasoning process, perhaps their salaries should be $100,000 or more.

However, if the supervisors want to depend on the comparison to judges, other additional factors will be required as to experience, education and passing a state test on the knowledge and ethics of being a member of the County Board of Supervisors. If this were the case, we might end up with only one supervisor remaining on our present board.

HOWARD F. McGRATH

Dana Point