County Plans Vacation Pay Despite Vote : Government: The controversial perk was discontinued on advice of a citizens panel. But the change doesn’t take effect until next year.

Despite a Board of Supervisors vote this week to cut perks, a dozen top Ventura County officials are in line to be paid between $11,000 and $26,000 each next month for seven weeks of vacation pay.

While the county had never ruled out the option of paying the vacation perk accrued by top officials in 1992, one of the most vocal members of a citizens pay panel said Friday he was shocked to learn that the large bonus would be paid in addition to the base pay raises all the elected officials are set to receive.

The vacation benefit, the most controversial of the perks quietly adopted in the late 1980s, was cut by the Board of Supervisors in September from seven to three weeks of pay--a move that would have gone into effect in January.

The board members then adopted the citizen panel’s recommendation Tuesday to eliminate the perk entirely but give themselves and the other elected officials large pay raises--starting next year.

Since the cuts were not retroactive, county officials determined that the officials should still be allowed to collect the seven weeks’ pay.

As a result, the five supervisors could each receive from $11,000 to $13,000 on Jan. 7, the first payday of the year, officials said. The district attorney, the sheriff, who is retiring, and four other elected officials are expected to receive between $16,000 and $23,000.

Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg, meanwhile, could be paid up to $26,000 for the lump-sum benefit, based on last year’s figures.

The disclosure on Friday sparked heated criticism from leaders of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn.

“To say that we’re disappointed would be an understatement,” said Jere Robings, executive director of the taxpayers’ organization. “It just seems inconceivable on the part of the supervisors to accept that kind of extra benefit.

“I’m appalled. I don’t think anyone feels that they are entitled to it. It just goes on and on.”

Association President Lindsay Nielson, a member of the citizens committee, added: “They’ve got a big political problem on their hands. I’d like to see how they deal with this one.”

He said that nine panel members were unaware that the officials would be receiving the seven weeks’ pay, although county leaders never tried to hide the information. If the panelists knew that the top officials would receive the vacation perk in January, they may have come up with a different pay plan, Nielson said.

Under the panel’s plan, unanimously adopted by the supervisors Tuesday, the board members would lose half a dozen controversial perks, including the vacation pay. Their base salary would be increased by $14,300--to $64,543--beginning Feb. 21. The board is expected to take a second vote on the salary ordinance at its meeting Tuesday.

Also following the panel’s suggestion, the board agreed to fold longevity, vacation and education benefits into the base pay of the sheriff, district attorney and four other elected officials--resulting in pay increases of up to $24,000 for those officials. Those changes go into effect Jan. 3.

Supervisors John K. Flynn and Vicky Howard said Friday that they will refuse to accept the vacation money.

“It’s a real simple matter for me,” Howard said. “I won’t be taking it.”

Flynn added: “I’m trying to get out of this damn thing.”

But county sources Friday said it was unclear whether the officials would be allowed to decline the vacation perk. The county counsel’s office determined last month that the leaders could not refuse the benefit.

Chief Assistant County Counsel Melodie M. Kleinman refused to comment on the matter Friday, saying it was private business.

Meanwhile, Supervisor Maria E. VanderKolk said she had not yet decided if she will accept the payment. What she decides to do with the money, she said, “won’t be anyone’s business but my own.”

Supervisor Maggie Kildee said she intends to accept the money. She said that although the perks panel disagreed with the county’s practice of offering perks, it found that the top officials’ total compensation packages were in line with those of other counties.

“Individual supervisors may do what they want,” Kildee said. “I plan to take it. I think it is appropriate for what the committee said.”

Supervisor Susan K. Lacey could not be reached for comment. However, she traditionally has given the money to charity.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Hal Pittman, who could receive up to $17,000 for the benefit, said he is frustrated that the problem had not been solved when the supervisors made the pay revisions this week.

“It would have been fortunate if they had worked something out on it,” he said. “It puts everyone in an awkward situation. Hopefully, people will recognize that they did take care of it for the future, and it won’t happen again.”