Proposal Ties Supervisors’ Pay to Judges’ : Government: A county review panel favors pegging officials’ compensation to a percentage of Superior Court jurists’ salaries.

The salaries of Ventura County’s five supervisors should be tied to those set by the state for Superior Court judges and not be determined in the future by the supervisors themselves, a county pay review panel tentatively decided Friday.

The preliminary vote by the perks review panel, which follows an earlier recommendation by the committee that many of the supervisors’ current benefits be eliminated, would peg salaries to a percentage of what the judges earn.

While the nine-member panel did not take a position on what that should be, panelist Lindsay Nielson suggested the pay be put at 65% of a judge’s salary--or $64,543 annually.

That would be about $14,300 more than the current base pay for the supervisors but less than most of the board members’ incomes when benefits are included.

“It would be a raise for some and a cut for some,” Nielson told the group.

Other committee members, however, said they wanted to wait until they can review the compensation packages of other counties before making a decision. The committee is set to meet again Tuesday.

“I feel very strongly that this should be the way we go,” said panel member Tom Bryson, general manager of Southern California Edison. “Sixty-five percent appears to make sense, but I’d like to see the data from the other counties.

“Ventura County has a reputation of being one of the best-run counties in the state. The idea is to pay them fairly. And I think one of the primary missions is to distance the board from setting its pay.”

Robert Quist, chief executive officer of Los Robles Medical Center, was the only member to vote against tying the supervisors’ pay to that of the judges. He said he hopes to persuade other panelists at their next meeting to find a better way of dealing with the salary issue.

“Why are we picking Superior Court judges?” Quist said. “In my mind I just don’t understand the rationale. I just have trouble tying the pay to another job the county doesn’t have any control over.

“The state may say, ‘We are losing good judges and we have to raise their salaries by 20%.’ Then do we do the same for supervisors?”

Nielson, however, said he believed linking the pay to the judges is the best possible option. In addition, he said, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties use a similar method in determining the pay for their supervisors.

To eliminate possible problems, Nielson suggested that a citizens panel be appointed to review the supervisors’ salaries every four years to determine if any other adjustments are needed.

“This is simple and apolitical,” Nielson said. “It’s an antiseptic way, imperfect as it is, of dealing with the issue.”

Panel member Bradley Wetherell, president of the Ventura County National Bank, agreed.

“It takes the salary issue out of the supervisors’ hands and it gives the flexibility for a future panel to look at the salaries and make sure they are reasonable,” Wetherell said.

Nielson’s plan is similar to a proposal presented to the Board of Supervisors in October by Supervisor John K. Flynn.

In an effort to defuse the controversy sparked by the county’s disclosure in September that its leaders were receiving large benefits packages on top of their base salaries, Flynn called for the board to cut three of its major perks and link its pay to that of Municipal Court judges.

Under Flynn’s plan, base salaries would have been increased to a total of $68,010 annually--about 75% of a Municipal Court judge’s salary.

The supervisors opted instead to form the citizens committee to study the matter.

Earlier this week, the citizens perks panel agreed that most of the controversial financial benefits now being paid to the five supervisors should be eliminated. The committee also recommended that the supervisors reduce their annual car allowance from $6,000 to $4,500--which would bring the stipends more in line with automobile allowances in counties of similar size.

Panelists said they plan to make similar recommendations on benefit cuts for the county’s remaining six elected officials next week.

In a separate action Friday, the panel decided that the supervisors should not receive stipends for serving on a wide variety of county boards and commissions--a move that could save a total of about $11,000 a year.

“My feeling is that is just part of the job,” said Nielson, who also made the motion to cut the extra pay. “For a day they are sitting on one of these committees, they are being paid as a supervisor anyway.”

Quist added: “To me there is an appearance of impropriety. They are attending committee meetings that are related to county business and also drawing salaries as a full-time supervisor. While it is minor, I don’t like the concept.”

Although the committee was set up by the supervisors to conduct an extensive study of public officials’ perks, it has no authority over their salary and benefits. When the group completes its work Dec. 15, the board may accept or reject any of its suggestions.

If the panel agrees that the county should raise salaries for the supervisors to $64,543, the total compensation packages of the board members--including several current benefits unlikely to be cut by the panel--would range between $74,000 and $87,000.

Supervisor Vicky Howard would receive a compensation package of about $74,000, about $2,300 more than she would receive without an increase in base pay because she does not qualify for some of the larger benefits veteran supervisors are paid. Meanwhile, Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, another relative newcomer on the board, would receive about $80,400, her current total income level.

The remaining three supervisors would receive pay decreases of about $2,000 to $9,000.

Flynn would get a compensation package of $75,000. Supervisor Maggie Kildee would receive $86,560. And Supervisor Susan K. Lacey would receive a pay and benefits package of $75,510.

Overall, Flynn said he was pleased that the committee wants to link the supervisors’ pay to the salary of the judges.

“It just makes good sense,” Flynn said. “The public doesn’t like their public servants setting their own salaries. It seems like a conflict. If it can be resolved this way, it removes a big, big problem for board members.”