County Issue / Perks for Public...

John K. Flynn, Chairman, Ventura County Board of Supervisors

I don’t think it’s an acceptable way to compensate public officials. It really isn’t done with others who receive compensation for their work. It’s not a tradition. For example, longevity pay is really unacceptable for compensating elected people in this day of term limits. However, there are benefits that are acceptable, such as medical and retirement. I offered a plan to the Board of Supervisors that our salaries be 75% of that paid to municipal court judges. That salary is set by the state, not by the people being paid. The judges have no input. I think this would be an acceptable way to compensate supervisors. It would take pay out of our hands and tie it to the municipal court salaries. This seems to be the best way to compensate the board for the services they render. This is being done in other counties, such as San Diego.

*

Lindsay Nielson, President, county Taxpayers Assn., and member, citizens advisory panel on perks

It would appear that this is not an appropriate way to compensate top officials, especially in such a generous manner. Longevity pay for elected officials? It is just one of the many things that is very difficult to justify. Part of the problem was the way it was handled. It seemed that county officials chose not to reveal the benefits when asked. If the information was forthcoming, it wouldn’t have had such resounding political effects. The creation of an independent commission to review the hidden benefits is a way to deflect political pressure. But I think we have a very well-run government, and I don’t know what the levels of appropriate pay should be. When you have perks that add 40 to 60% to the acknowledged salary, we don’t know whether it’s appropriate. It used to be that government provided a stable job and good retirement. Now government is leading the private sector in benefits. Many people believe that’s not fair.

*

Stanley E. Cohen, Thousand Oaks attorney

I don’t question the amount the supervisors are receiving, because I recognize that, in Ventura County, being a supervisor is a full-time job. I had a general knowledge that these kinds of perks existed. For many years, the board received special compensation for serving on separate bodies, such as the flood control district. My criticism is that it confuses people who look at their base salary. I would prefer to see the perks eliminated and the base salary increased, so that it’s clear to the public that the supervisors are being paid substantial sums of money. They need a substantial amount because they earn it, they do a great job and they have the same needs as the rest of us to support their families. I don’t think there’s any intentional deception. It has grown as a way of providing additional compensation and has gotten out of hand. I don’t blame people for being upset.

*

Ruth Johnson, Oxnard resident and taxpayer activist

No. It’s too easy to tack on anything and everything. My husband tried to find out how much they were making before the election, and he got bounced from one person to the other and couldn’t find out. They should be liable. This commission they’re setting up seems to have people on it who are really rich. This committee is going to say, “You’re doing such a wonderful job that we will have to give you $100,000. We need to offer a high pay that will attract people who are as good as you.” Heard that before? I would be glad to be on it. We need people with plain views. I think they should be punished. Their salary should be taken away from them, and they should have to repay the perks. But the commission will not do that. They will give them the biggest salaries yet. When I find out what’s going on, it turns my hair grayer than it already is.

*

Melinda Wiman, Thousand Oaks resident and member , Citizens Against Government Waste

No. We voted them in thinking they were getting a certain salary. If the perks are what keeps them there, I think we can find other people who would do a good job. There are too many citizens in this county who had no idea that the Board of Supervisors or the county executives were receiving additional compensation. A lot of people would disagree when the supervisors say all these things were done in the public eye. No one I know can recall when the board made a public announcement that they were voting on these benefits. I have yet to talk with one person who approves of the perks, the way it was handled and the concept that the public doesn’t care. We’ve lost faith in our government. When you have the government doing something behind your back, it bothers people a lot. I don’t approve of a perks-review committee that just has chief executive officers and business people. It should have some regular people on it.