Supervisors’ Raises Should Be Merited, Not Automatic

Many factors determine how well workers in private industry are paid. If there is competition for a valued employee, be he an engineer or a baseball player, the price goes up. If the company had a good year, bonuses are more likely.

Shareholders of firms recently emerged from bankruptcy cannot be expected to sign off on raises for top executives. If anything, pay cuts could be justified.

When Orange County declared bankruptcy 26 months ago, many county employees were fired in an attempt to save money. Several supervisors took nominal pay cuts, but the 5% reductions were more symbolic than painful.

Four of the five supervisors have taken office since the county declared bankruptcy. Clearly, the newcomers are not to blame for lax oversight of an investment pool that lost a staggering $1.64 billion and prompted the fiscal calamity.

Still, it is too early for pay raises for the supervisors, which would be the effect of one proposal under discussion now. Supervisor Jim Silva has floated the idea of tying a supervisor’s pay to that of a state official, perhaps a judge. The state Legislature sets judges’ salaries. When they rise, so would the supervisors’ pay, automatically. That’s a bad idea.

The Orange County supervisors now are paid $82,100 a year in salary. They also get $3,500 in “management benefits” to spend, or save, as they see fit. There is a $4,800-a-year car allowance. There are payments worth $10,000 or more for attending meetings of boards on which they serve. It may turn out that not every supervisor will demand every penny to which he is legally entitled, but all told, the chance is there for a supervisor to rake in $100,000 a year.

One good move would be to add the management benefits and car allowance to the salary. Adding outside board meeting fees might be more difficult, since not all sit on the same boards. Still, there is probably a way to do it. Set the salary and let the public see what it is.

When it comes time for a raise, let the supervisors propose it, justify it, debate it. Silva said he wants to take the politics out of raises by tying them to another official’s pay. Judges are usually cited because the pay of supervisors in some other counties is tied to judicial stipends. But it is still a poor method of setting pay. The main benefit is to the supervisors, who can shrug their shoulders and say their higher pay was not their doing; they got raises because the judges did.

Although the supervisors have not had a raise since 1991, from 1985 to 1990 the salaries went from $45,612 to $82,100. The median income in Orange County for a family of four now is around $63,000. That means that if the extra payments are added to their base salaries, supervisors make at least 60% more than the county’s median income. That’s high enough. If the pay were tied to that of a Superior Court judge, it would go higher, to $107,000.

Supervisors have tried to shield themselves from political heat over pay raises before this. In 1970, they tried to tie their salaries to those of state legislators. In 1991, they tried to link salary increases to those given to the county’s top managers. Both times, the supervisors eventually backed down.

Judges and supervisors perform different tasks. Linking their salaries makes no sense. In 1970, Sacramento gave local boards of general-law counties, such as Orange County, the power to set their own salaries in a proper belief that acting on the local level was best. The supervisors’ base salaries now rank second only to those in Los Angeles County, which has far more people. Orange County supervisors should add the extra pay they already get in with their base salaries, leave their pay where it is and be sure in the future that when they want raises, they make their case to the taxpayers, who foot the bill.