Committee to Study Issue of Pay Raises for Supervisors

A sharply divided Ventura County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to set up a committee to study salary and benefit increases for itself and elected department heads.

The move marks the first time board members have considered changing their rate of compensation since being criticized several years ago for failing to maintain tight control over their perks.

The issue became politically explosive in 1992 after a Times survey showed that 11 top elected officials and then-Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg received more than $300,000 in extra benefits annually.

The Ventura County Grand Jury later looked into the matter and cited more than 15 compensation benefits and perks that it said were excessive, including thousands of dollars in hidden transportation allowances, and vacation, longevity and education benefits.

The board rescinded most of the perks but raised each supervisor’s base salary, which is now at $71,897 annually.

On Tuesday, the board voted 3 to 2 with Supervisor John Flynn and Chairwoman Susan Lacey dissenting.

Flynn argued that no study is needed to ascertain that he and his colleagues deserve a higher rate of compensation. Currently, supervisors are paid 65% of the yearly salary of a Superior Court judge. Each judge earns $110,612 annually. The six-term supervisor suggested raising the supervisors’ figure to 70%, which would amount to about a $5,000 increase this year.

“We don’t need a blue ribbon committee; that’s just a way to avoid the issue,” he said. “Let’s just take it straight on.”

Lacey, however, said she wanted to speak to the six elected department heads who would be subject to review before moving forward with a committee.

They are Assessor Dan Goodwin, who earns an annual base salary of $112,838; Auditor-Controller Tom Mahon, who earns $121,290; county clerk-recorder Richard Dean, who makes $103,583; Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, who makes $133,787; Sheriff Bob Brooks, who makes $139,141; and Treasurer-Tax Collector Hal Pittman, who earns $104,940.

Lacey added that she is satisfied with her current pay. Since 1992, supervisors have received raises whenever the judges did.

“We’ve been getting raises; we have a formula to do that,” Lacey said. “I would like to see the comfort level of the six elected officials first. I would like to see how they feel.”

County Chief Administrative Officer Lin Koester said the six department heads told him they would not object to forming a salary review committee.

However, they also were not opposed to having an already established “internal parity committee” review their salaries, Koester said. The county officials on that committee are currently studying the salaries of department managers and comparing them to counterparts in other Southern California counties.

But supervisors Judy Mikels, Frank Schillo and Kathy Long said it’s time to review the salaries, pointing out that the economy is healthy and the county is debt-free.

They also said that the new committee may ultimately recommend no salary or benefit increases.

“Yes, it’s uncomfortable to talk about salaries and everyone runs and hides . . . but we ought not to shy away from it,” Mikels said. “It happens in everyone’s life and we ought to just go on with it.”

Responding to Thousand Oaks resident Jere Robings’ comment that “in the real world, employees are given a performance review” before pay raises, Mikels retorted, “We just went through a performance review. It’s called an election.”

At one point, Long said, “I’m comfortable with the salary I receive.” She said she would support establishing a committee to review compensation for only the six department heads.

But in the end, she voted to form the committee.

“I said I would [vote against the committee] only if that’s where [the vote] was going,” she explained immediately after casting her vote.

Long also said she was pleased that the proposed committee would include what she considers a diverse membership. The committee may resemble one established in October 1992 in the wake of public furor over revelations in The Times’ analysis.

Among members of the 1992 committee were Tom Bryson, Southern California Edison’s general manager of the north coast region; retired Judge John Hunter; J. Roger Myers, Ventura County Bar Assn. president; and Marshall Mulligan, Bank of A. Levy president.

But Flynn disagreed with Long’s assertion that the 1992 committee reflected diversity.

“There are no Spanish surnames, no blacks, no Asians,” Flynn said. “I don’t see labor represented or agriculture representation. . . . Where are the females?”

County staff will return to the board Tuesday with a list of recommended members.

Mike Saliba, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., agreed with those who expressed that the committee might advise against a raise.

“You review something and it could go either way,” Saliba said.

But Robings, who in 1992 was president of the now-closed Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers, was more pointed.

He said the discussion should not even occur, considering that the county’s failed attempt to merge its mental health and welfare services departments could cost taxpayers $15 million in federal reimbursements.

“It is inconceivable to me that the board could make such a major blunder, then come back and ask for a raise,” Robings said.

Referring to Lacey, Flynn and Long, who in April voted in favor of the merger, he added, “It’s too bad that pay raises for the board cannot be granted on an individual basis.”