Perks Board Says Data Slow in Arriving : Government: County personnel director says he is hindered in his efforts to gather comparative information. Panelists criticize his hiring of a consultant to finish the job.

At the halfway point of an unprecedented review of county pay packages, members of a citizens perks panel say they have run into a roadblock in their effort to gather basic information.

The obstacle, panelists have begun to complain, is county Personnel Director Ron Komers.

Although the panel asked Komers on Nov. 10 to gather compensation packages from five other counties, Komers said time and staff constraints have made it difficult for him to collect and analyze all the data.

Instead of assigning county staff to the job, he has hired a private consultant for $10,000 to complete the task--a move that has sparked sharp criticism from committee members.

Several panel members said last week that they plan to voice their concerns about the personnel director’s action at their next meeting on Dec. 1.

The panel had wanted to meet this Tuesday, but delayed the session because Komers will be on vacation.

“Even though he is authorized to spend this type of money, I think it should have been discussed with his supervisors,” said panel member Bradley Wetherell, president of the Ventura County National Bank. “We are talking about a substantial expense. The information we are looking for does not require a consultant.”

Panel member Roger Myers, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., agreed.

“It seems a little strange to me that we are supposed to be looking at things in terms of saving the county some money, and they go out and spend more money,” Myers said. “I’m a little shocked about that.”

Panelist Lindsay Nielson, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., said he thinks the information could have been readily obtained.

“This is ridiculous,” Nielson said.

But Supervisor John K. Flynn defended Komers.

Although Flynn said that he would have liked to have known about hiring a consultant before Komers took the action, the supervisor said the panel members should have taken a more active role in gathering the information.

“Why don’t they just do it?” Flynn said. “They need to take charge of things; they are all very capable people.”

Flynn said Komers has been “upset and depressed” about the outcome of the panel meetings.

“He’s our front-line trooper,” Flynn said. “I just think it’s an uncomfortable position to put him in.”

Panelists had hoped to have their study of the pay packages completed by Dec. 15, as requested by the Board of Supervisors. But because of the problems with obtaining the information, some were fearful that they might miss the deadline.

In addition to other criticisms of Komers, committee members have accused the personnel director of trying to “guide” them by second-guessing their choice of localities to study.

In a four-page memo issued to the panel on Nov. 12, Komers urged the panel to reconsider its decision to compare Ventura County to Contra Costa, Kern, Fresno, San Joaquin and San Mateo counties, selected because they have similar populations and budgets.

Komers said Ventura County salaries and benefits should be compared instead to those of other counties in Southern California--even though most of them have much larger populations--because they are the center of local recruitment efforts.

“Ron Komers is trying to direct the committee instead of serve it,” Nielson said. “A lot of us were questioning the motives.”

Nielson said the larger size of the populations and budgets of other Southern California counties could make the compensation packages in Ventura County look small by comparison.

But Komers said he simply wants to make sure Ventura County is treated fairly in the review process.

For years, the county personnel department has compared Ventura County salaries to those of other Southern California jurisdictions when setting pay policy, Komers said.

“The vast majority of our help-wanted advertising . . . and most of our hires come from Southern California,” Komers wrote in the memo to the panel. “I would represent to the committee that our employees look to the Southern California area to determine whether they are satisfied and motivated by our compensation practices.”

In addition, Komers said, housing prices in Ventura County differ significantly from those in Fresno, Kern and San Joaquin counties. That is one reason why compensation tends to be less in those areas, he said.

He also said that since those counties are more rural than Ventura County, they do not share the problems of this area--such as smog and traffic--that present tougher issues for top county officials here.

“I think rural counties do not clearly represent the duties and responsibilities of our Board of Supervisors,” Komers said. “They are similar in size but not similar in responsibilities and problems.”

Komers also took issue with criticism that he is not working quickly to complete the process of gathering data. He said that after receiving the instructions from the panel on Nov. 10, he immediately faxed requests for the data to the five counties. But, he said, the counties have been slow to respond.

“I had less than a week to prepare the information and that is not adequate,” Komers said. “I’m trying to collect as much information as fast as I can, but it’s not an easy task. I will have it all together for (the panelists’) Dec. 8 meeting.”

Last week, Komers provided the panelists with base salaries of top officials from 11 other counties, including the five that the panel identified. He added figures for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and San Diego counties, most of which have higher base pay for top officials.

He said he has staff members working full-time to pull together benefits information from Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties. The staff will then send the data to the consultant, Skopos Consulting Group of Woodland Hills, for analysis.

Komers said he opted to hire the firm because it could provide the committee with the most accurate and complete information--something he said he does not have the staff to do because his department suffered severe layoffs during the last budget process.

Members of the Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg said they did not know about the decision to hire the consultant. However, they said that Komers can spend up to $25,000 on consulting fees before obtaining authorization from the board.

The confrontation between Komers and some members of the perks panel is just the latest in a series of controversies that have surrounded the personnel director this year.

On Sept. 14, the 1992-93 Ventura County grand jury sent a letter to the county Board of Supervisors asking it to delay approval of pay raises for 1,820 county employees until jurors could study the proposal.

When the board ignored the request, the grand jury summoned Komers to answer questions about the county’s employee-compensation system. Komers stormed out of the session, saying some of the jurors were abusive.

And in February it was disclosed that the 1991-92 grand jury and Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury had been investigating whether Komers improperly used the county’s career development program to advance his own career.

The investigation eventually found no criminal activity in connection with the county tuition funding program.

During an interview last spring, Komers said he did nothing wrong and had no plans to return county money used to underwrite his graduate work in psychology at the Fielding Institute, which charges $7,750 a year for tuition.

He said his use of career development funds to further his education “was fully within the program guidelines.” He added, however, that he was no longer using county money to help fund his tuition.

Komers said last week that he does not feel he is being “picked on” by the perks panel members in his latest high-profile role.

“The panel has a very difficult job and I appreciate the difficult job they have,” Komers said. “I’m sure we will work our way through the task.”

In addition to their complaints about Komers, panel members said last week that they have been astonished in their research so far at the size of the county’s financial benefits.

In September, the county revealed that its 11 elected officials and chief administrative officer received a total of more than $270,000 on top of their regular salaries last year in vacation, longevity and education benefits and thousands of dollars more in other financial perks.

The biggest benefit for the officials has been an annual lump-sum payment called in-lieu-of-vacation pay. Until Sept. 15, when it was cut by 50%, the benefit added seven weeks pay to their compensation packages. It still provides three weeks pay.

Most of the supervisors received $11,855 to $13,137 for the vacation benefit in each of the past two years, on top of the base salaries of $50,232. In addition, veteran supervisors Flynn, Maggie Kildee and Susan Lacey received “longevity incentive” benefits ranging from $3,700 to $4,389 last year because of their tenure in office.

Other benefits crafted into complex pay packages for the officials pushed their total income significantly over their base pay. For example, Wittenberg received a base pay of $123,630 and a total compensation package of $183,783. Kildee received a total compensation package of almost $98,000.

Wittenberg and most of the other top county officials also receive $6,000 annually in car allowances, plus 27 cents per mile for driving on county business.

“I think people would be amazed at how well they do in the county,” Myers said. “There are elected officials who are making more money now than they ever made in the private sector.”

In their public comments so far, most panel members have focused on the possibility of folding excessive perks into the base pay of county officials instead of cutting them--a practice which would essentially leave county supervisors and other officials with their current income levels.

However, several committee members said last week that they might suggest cutting the total take-home pay of the officials if it proves to be out of line with that of the five other counties the panelists hope to study.

“I’m interested in seeing what the similar positions in the other counties are being paid,” Wetherell said.

When contacted by The Times, officials in San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Kern and Fresno county said they do not have many of the perks offered in Ventura County, which has a population of 680,300 and a median house price $245,400. However, almost all the counties offer some form of additional compensation to their top officials.

Personnel staff from the counties did not provide total compensation packages for their top officials, but they gave some details about base salaries and some benefits:

* In Contra Costa County--which has a population of 827,100 and a median house price of $254,100--officials receive an extra 5% increase in pay for serving more than 10 years with the county.

They are also allowed to cash in on some of their unused vacation time. The chief administrative officer receives a base salary of $130,332 while supervisors receive $49,332, according to county officials.

* In Fresno County--which has a population of 702,000 and a median house price of $83,600--top officials receive $2,100 annual expense allowances. They also receive $4,980 car allowances and are allowed to cash in on up to 80 hours of unused vacation time.

The chairman of the Board of Supervisors receives a base salary of $40,106 while the other board members are paid $35,989. The chief administrative officer’s salary is set at $109,200.

* In San Mateo County--which has a population of 663,400 and a median house price of $343,900--top officials receive about 5.6% extra pay each year to make up for not being able to take overtime.

The county pays $5,200 car allowances to some officials, but does not provide additional mileage. The chief administrative officer receives a base salary of $132,660, while the supervisors receive $57,180.

* In Kern County--which has a population of 572,700 and a median house price of $84,800--top officials receive an extra 5% pay each year for holding management positions. Although they are not allowed to cash in on unused vacation time, top officials receive about $4,400 annual car allowances.

Board members receive a base salary of $62,328 while the chief administrative officer receives $115,512.

* In San Joaquin County--which has a population of 496,300 and a median home value of $121,700--top officials can cash in up to two weeks per year of unused vacation pay. However, with the county’s budget woes, the chief administrative officer suspended that benefit last year, officials said.

The county also contributes 5% of base salary toward deferred compensation for its leaders, county officials said. The supervisors receive a base salary of $43,284 while the chief administrative officer is paid $100,800.

“We need to be able to say that the (Ventura County) salaries and benefits are fair and reasonable in comparison to other counties,” said panelist Tom Bryson, a general manager for Southern California Edison.

“Maybe we’ll recommend that some of the cash perks be folded into the total base salaries or make recommendations that they be reduced.”

Myers added: “Even though Mr. Komers doesn’t want us to look at those (five) counties, I still want to see them. . . . I just want to see what the facts are.”