Pay Hike for Court Officer Delayed : Government: Judges say they want more time to study the controversial raise proposed for Sheila Gonzalez.

Ventura County judges on Thursday postponed their decision to raise the pay of the county courts administrator until next month, saying they needed more time to study the controversial proposal.

A four-judge committee has recommended Sheila Gonzalez’s salary be raised, although committee officials and other key judges have refused to publicly say how much of a pay hike is being considered.

Gonzalez, 50, is Ventura County’s courts executive officer, clerk and jury commissioner. She earns a base salary of $96,624, plus about $25,000 in perks and benefits.

Eight months ago, the judges considered raising her salary by $23,000, but backed away from the pay hike at that time, saying the four-judge committee needed to compare her salary with those of her colleagues around the state.

In its analysis of comparable positions, the committee determined that Gonzalez deserves a raise given her extensive responsibilities, and forwarded a recommendation for a pay raise.

But at its monthly meeting Wednesday, judges from the Municipal and Superior courts decided to delay the decision because several of them wanted to examine the various salary figures that the committee had compiled.

“I wasn’t surprised,” said Superior Court Presiding Judge Melinda A. Johnson, who supports a raise for Gonzalez. “It’s a big issue. I was sure there would be at least a few people who would wish to talk about it more.”

Johnson and Municipal Court Presiding Judge John R. Smiley refused to disclose how big of a raise is being considered.

Although the idea of a pay raise for Gonzalez has generated some criticism from a local taxpayer activist and several county officials, Smiley said the judges who asked for more time to consider the proposal are not necessarily bent on reducing the size of the proposed raise.

“I frankly believe some of the people who wanted more time to think about this are genuinely considering proposing something higher than what the committee recommended,” Smiley said.

Neither Smiley, Johnson nor Assistant Municipal Court Presiding Judge Barry B. Klopfer would say which judges asked to have the raise issue postponed. Klopfer and Smiley were two of the four members of the committee that made the recommendation to give Gonzalez a raise.

Smiley said the judges have no intention of disclosing the amount of any raise until the matter is finalized.

“I think the public has an absolute right to know when, and if, we have a salary increase for Sheila,” Smiley said. “But until that number is decided upon, it is sheer speculation.”

He and other judges said they suspect the amount may change at the next meeting.

“I think judges as a group are used to making independent decisions,” Klopfer said. “The fact that they wanted more time isn’t a particular surprise.”

*

State law stipulates that the court executive officer’s salary in each county be fixed by Superior and Municipal court judges and paid from the county general fund.

Superior Court Judge James M. McNally did not attend Thursday’s meeting. He was a critic of the proposal to give Gonzalez a $23,000 raise last May.

Contacted after his colleagues made a decision to delay their vote until Feb. 7, McNally said the extra time would be helpful for evaluating the issue.

“I’m pleased to hear that we are going to get some time to look at these numbers,” McNally said. He said he has not been informed of the size of the raise.

In an interview before the judges’ meeting, however, he said he would oppose any raise for Gonzalez that exceeded 5% of her salary, or about $5,000. Other critics have said they would oppose any raise of more than 3%.

California judges received a 5% raise last year, McNally said. He said Gonzalez should not receive more than a 5% raise because of the county’s ongoing financial shortfall. He pointed out that county supervisors have delayed raises for other employees.

“It has nothing to do with Sheila Gonzalez,” McNally said of his opposition to a raise of more than 5%. “We’re not out of this economic wilderness yet.”