2 Supervisors Propose Worker Pay Cuts : Budget: Ideas from Flynn and VanderKolk come on the heels of a series of recent votes for salary increases for themselves and county employees.

Three months after voting salary raises for themselves and other top county managers, two Ventura County supervisors Monday proposed reducing the pay of most county workers by 5% and slashing fringe benefits in an effort to cut $20 million from next year’s budget.

Although one union leader accused supervisors John K. Flynn and Maria VanderKolk of “grandstanding,” their proposals were praised by taxpayer advocates as a bold attempt to control government spending.

Flynn and VanderKolk, who presented their ideas during a Monday morning press conference, are calling on the Board of Supervisors to make the following reforms:

* Eliminate an estimated $4 million in “in lieu of vacation” pay, a financial perk that gives the county’s top managers and their staff members the option of cashing in up to seven weeks of unused vacation time.

* Cut $1.8 million in “longevity pay,” offered to top employees who have worked for the county for more than five years.

* Reduce the salaries of county managers and negotiate with the unions to reduce the salaries of workers by 5%, a cut that would save an estimated $13 million.

In addition, the supervisors proposed eliminating mileage reimbursements for workers who receive auto allowances. They also urged that the county cut all textbook and tuition reimbursements for employees and eliminate all travel, except in special cases.

Their suggestions came just three months after they voted to increase the salaries of board members by $14,300--to $64,543--to offset a decision to cut board perks. Just two weeks ago, they voted to give a 2% raise to 19 special investigators.

And last August, the two supervisors also voted to support a proposal that gives pay raises to 1,820 county employees, including a 3.7% pay increase to 850 county managers.

Now faced with the worst money crunch in county government since the 1930s, the two supervisors said they erred in supporting the raises and will urge the other board members next Tuesday to implement their recommendations to slice pay and perks.

“In retrospect, that (the raise) was probably a mistake,” VanderKolk said. “Now we are saying we have to go back and reassess that. We have to cut salaries at this point.”

Flynn said: “It does seem like a contradiction, we’ll have to confess that. . . . But we have to start someplace. We’re starting here.”

Although supervisors Maggie Kildee and Vicky Howard would not say whether they would support the proposals, they praised Flynn and VanderKolk for coming up with alternatives to reducing the county’s budget.

“I think they have done a lot of work and they have a lot of suggestions,” Kildee said. “I think they need to be seriously looked at.”

Howard added: “I’ve said many times that we need creative ideas. We need to continue to explore more proposals.”

But Howard criticized Flynn and VanderKolk for failing to take their proposals directly to the county’s budget committee, which is charged with recommending to the board ways the county should deal with a projected $36 million state funding cut.

In January, the Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to oust VanderKolk from the budget committee, which she had served on for a year, and put Kildee in VanderKolk’s place. The move sparked hard feelings and prompted Flynn and VanderKolk to come up with their own fiscal proposals.

“I think the budget subcommittee should look at it first,” Howard said. “We have to talk about this together.”

However, VanderKolk said: “Our proposal was the kind of thing that could sit in committee for months. I don’t want to negotiate this to death.”

Flynn added:

“When you start talking about shutting down libraries and at the same time you are going around to conferences and seminars, something is haywire there.

“The bureaucracy wants to continue driving a Cadillac. . . . I think we’ve got to reduce ourselves to driving a Chevrolet. That is what this is all about.”

H. Jere Robings, president of the Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers, and Michael Saliba, executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., praised the proposal.

“It feels like Christmas,” Robings said. “This is something that I’ve been working on for 2 1/2 years. I’m just glad that they finally realized that this is the way to approach part of their budget problem.”

Saliba added: “We support the suggestions and applaud the efforts of the supervisors.”

But county union representatives criticized the duo, saying their proposal would “balance the county’s budget on the backs of the workers.”

“What they are doing is a politically easy place to start,” said David Williams, president of the Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs Assn. Williams said that rather than cutting the salaries and benefits of managers, they should be looking at cutting unnecessary programs instead.

“I don’t think they are looking at what really needs to be done,” Williams said, adding that the supervisors appear to be grandstanding. “We need to downsize government and prioritize what services are important to the taxpayer.”

“We are somewhat dismayed by their actions,” said Barry Hammitt, executive director of the Service Employees International Union, Local 998. “We have been working together very diligently through the budget subcommittee to explore issues that will save jobs and money. I hate to see people not working within the system.”

Ken Maffei, president of the Ventura County Firefighters’ Assn. was less critical.

“Someone has finally had the courage to look at government differently,” Maffei said. “But our position is we are not even going to give (a 5% pay cut) serious consideration until we are convinced that the county has cut to the bone in all other areas. So far we are not convinced of that.”