Panelists Criticize Extra Pay for Officials : Benefits: Citizen committee members reviewing county compensation practices say larger wages should be offered.

Members of a citizens committee reviewing the pay of top Ventura County administrators on Tuesday sharply criticized the county’s practice of providing three weeks extra pay per year to 11 elected officials.

The tough attack on one of the most controversial of the county’s financial perks came as the panelists met for the second time to review the compensation packages of the government leaders.

Several members told Personnel Director Ron Komers that the county should consider offering a larger wage to the elected officials instead of its current complex system of financial benefits, especially the three weeks of added pay.

“They are getting paid twice for the same work,” said panel member Lindsay Nielson, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers’ Assn. “It really creates a double-dip.

“We could make a recommendation that the elected officials receive ‘X’ amount of pay and stop this other nonsense. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to run for office.”

“I can tell they don’t treat elected judges this way,” said retired Municipal Judge John J. Hunter, the chairman of the committee. He added, with a laugh, “we don’t get any of this stuff.”

Member Bradley Wetherell, president of Ventura County National Bank, told the group, “I think there could be abuse within the system, certainly within a system this large.”

The panel was formed by the Board of Supervisors in response to a barrage of public criticism in the wake of the county’s disclosure that the elected officials and the chief administrative officer received more than $270,000 in vacation, longevity and education benefits on top of their salaries in 1991.

During Tuesday’s session, Komers handed out a chart showing that the 11 elected officials are set to receive a total of $74,259 next year for the added three weeks’ pay--prompting the flurry of critical remarks from the panel.

“It’s premium pay for being an elected official,” said Bill Puchlevic, vice president of human resources for Amgen Inc.

Up until September, Komers told the group, the elected officials automatically were paid for seven weeks of extra pay under the county’s “in lieu of vacation” benefit. But the Board of Supervisors decided to reduce the perk because they thought that it was excessive, he said.

He said the benefit was intended to equalize the pay between elected and appointed officials.

Komers told the group that the county’s appointed managers have the option of cashing in on up to five weeks of unused vacation and sick leave. Since the elected officials do not receive a set amount of vacation and sick time, they automatically receive payment for the benefit, Komers said.

He told the group, however, that the elected officials are allowed to set their own schedules and take off as much time as they like.

“I think a more forthright method is needed,” Nielson said. “Just pay people what they are worth.”

“If it’s in the base pay, it’s totally visible and understandable,” said Tom Bryson, general manager of Southern California Edison North Coast Region.

The group, which includes nine prominent community members, will meet Tuesday to continue its discussion on the issue. The committee is set to issue a formal report by Dec. 15 outlining its conclusions to the Board of Supervisors.

In addition to the issue of three weeks of extra pay, Wetherell said he is uneasy with the county’s practice of paying 27 cents per mile to officials who receive $6,000 annual car allowances. He also questioned the county’s practice of offering a pay increase to officials who have college degrees.

“I have a great deal of concern with a system that allows 100% educational benefits,” he said. “I have a hard time with a system that pays hard money in lieu of vacation.

“I would have a problem with issuing automobile allowances to people who are not required to travel on a day-to-day basis.”

But figuring out how to change the pay system will not be easy, committee members said.

‘It’s like putting your arms around an elephant,” Puchlevic said. “Compensation is a very tough thing to get your arms around.

“You may want to say, ‘Why don’t you just lump it into base pay and keep it real simple,’ but I don’t think it’s that easy to answer.”