Panel Urges Higher Pay for Supervisors : Compensation: A citizens committee reiterates plan to slash perks. Three of five board members would lose $2,000 to $9,000.

The salaries of Ventura County’s five supervisors should be set at $64,543 annually--about $14,300 more than their current base pay, a county pay review panel decided Wednesday.

But panel members reiterated an earlier decision to cut an average of $17,182 in controversial perks offered to board members, even while raising salaries to 65% of what Superior Court judges earn.

If the supervisors approve the panel’s recommendations next week, three of the five would lose $2,000 to $9,000 in pay and benefits. Their total compensation packages would range from $74,000 to $87,000.

The panelists made the decision after county personnel director Ron Komers gave them information showing that the average compensation package for supervisors in Kern, Fresno, Contra Costa, San Mateo and San Joaquin counties is $74,410.

Although pay and benefits for supervisors in Ventura County would be higher than the average in the five other counties, members of the citizens panel said they believe that the proposed wage is fair.

“There is not a question in my mind that they earn their money,” said panel member Tom Bryson, a general manager for Southern California Edison. “It’s an extremely demanding position. I don’t think they should be rich, but I think they should be paid fairly.”

Overall, the proposed adjustments would save taxpayers about $13,000.

Also on Wednesday, the panel members took the following action:

* Voted unanimously to recommend that the county eliminate longevity, vacation and education pay for six elected officials, including the district attorney and sheriff. The panelists decided that the officials’ base salaries should be adjusted to make up for the cut and agreed to continue their discussion on the matter when they meet again today.

* Agreed that the car allowances of the six elected officials should be reduced from $6,000 to $4,500--to make it more in line with car allowances in other counties. The panelists also decided that the county should not include the auto allowance in calculations to determine retirement pay--a practice that is done for almost all Ventura County’s elected officials.

* Decided to try to determine today whether the vacation packages of the county’s appointed managers should be reduced. Panel member Marshall Milligan, president of the Bank of A. Levy, said he was concerned that offering the officials up to nine weeks of vacation and sick time each year is excessive.

“Forty-six paid days off for anyone is too much,” Milligan said. “If you are talking about comparing it to the private sector, it’s way out of line.”

Members of the panel--which was formed in October after the county’s disclosure that top officials were receiving large perks--are expected to present their findings to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Although the committee was set up by the supervisors to conduct an extensive study of the perks, it has no authority over the salary and benefits of public officials. The supervisors may accept or reject any of its suggestions.

Even if the supervisors agree with the recommendation to tie their salaries to judicial pay, the change would not go into effect until Feb. 21. That would be too late to halt an annual vacation benefit, worth three weeks’ salary, given to supervisors and other elected officials.

County Counsel James McBride said that, under law, ordinances do not take effect for 60 days after they are passed. As a result, the 11 elected officials will receive a total of about $74,000 for the vacation benefit on Jan. 7.

Supervisor John K. Flynn said he is considering suggesting Tuesday that the supervisors at least be given the option of refusing to take the vacation pay--which averages $5,049 for each supervisor.

“I think that the board can see changes are coming about and ought to provide an option for supervisors to either accept or reject the pay,” Flynn said. “That’s going to be a major embarrassment.”

So far, Flynn and Supervisor Maria VanderKolk said they support the panel’s recommendation to tie the salaries to the judges’ salaries, which are determined by the state.

“I think it sounds fine,” VanderKolk said. “If we have learned a lesson from all this, it’s that there needs to be complete and full disclosure.

“We should say this is our salary and that’s that. I’m glad this is coming to a conclusion.”

Flynn, who presented a similar plan to the board in October, agreed.

“I think it makes it simpler,” Flynn said. “It is more direct. It’s easier to understand, and it take the issue out of our hands.”

Supervisors Susan K. Lacey and Vicky Howard could not be reached for comment, and Supervisor Maggie Kildee declined to comment on the matter, saying she would wait until the panel issues its report.

If the supervisors agree to adopt the changes in their pay, Howard would receive a compensation package of about $74,000--about $2,300 more than she would receive without an increase in base pay. VanderKolk, another relative newcomer on the board, would receive about $80,400, her current 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, compared with the $84,017 he receives now. Kildee would make $86,560, down from $90,102. And Lacey would get $75,510, down from $78,227.

The differences in the individual supervisors’ pay are tied to their retirement plans.

“No matter what we come up with, there is going to be a part of the population that doesn’t like it,” said panelist Lindsay Nielson. “There will be some people who are very angry we didn’t slash their salaries.”

Bryson added: “Our idea was not to take everything away from them, but rather to show what they earn in their base salary. I feel really good about it.”