Retirement Perk Irks County Supervisor

A retirement perk for elected department heads that will cost Ventura County government nearly $1 million over the next 10 years is being challenged by Supervisor Steve Bennett.

Elected on a reform platform last fall, Bennett said he plans to bring a letter before the board next month asking members to reconsider the benefit, which he likened to a retirement giveaway that past review committees have openly condemned.

“Two blue-ribbon committees and the public have clearly indicated they don’t want hidden spikes in the benefit packages of elected officials,” Bennett said. “And that’s clearly what this is and that’s why it’s inappropriate.”

But at least one elected official said the benefit is simply an issue of fairness.

“We are not asking for anything more than what the appointed department heads already get,” said Treasurer-Tax Collector Hal Pittman, one of the beneficiaries of the perk. “We just want it to be a level playing field.”

The benefit, which was approved by the board in 1999, allows the county’s six elected department heads to receive cash payouts equivalent to up to seven weeks of vacation at retirement--even though elected officials do not accrue off time. The benefit does not apply to the five-member Board of Supervisors.

The added compensation was created to give outgoing elected officials the same payout options as those retiring from appointed seats in county government. Non-elected managers can turn up to seven weeks of unused vacation time into cash and, in doing so, pad the salary used to calculate retirement benefits.

A 1999 staff report estimated the program would cost taxpayers about $80,500 in fiscal year 2000-01. But current estimates show the cost of compensating elected department heads--the district attorney, sheriff, auditor-controller, clerk-recorder, treasurer-tax collector and assessor--has ballooned to $128,000 annually.

Monthly Bonus Sweetens Retirement

The issue came to a head Tuesday, when supervisors were asked to approve the benefit for former Auditor-Controller Tom Mahon, who retired in December. After 30 years with the county, Mahon is entitled to about $1,400 a month in bonus money on top of his monthly retirement checks.

County officials declined to specify how much Mahon receives in monthly pension pay. But based on a retirement formula that includes Mahon’s age, length of service and salary at retirement, he is receiving at least $8,100 a month, a Times analysis found. With the bonus pay, that totals $9,500 a month, for annual retirement pay of $114,000.

Mahon is the first elected department manager to retire since the new policy was approved.

Although the item was placed on the county’s consent agenda--which is reserved for items considered noncontroversial and requiring no public discussion--Bennett removed the matter and said the perk deserved to be reviewed. Bennett eventually supported the benefit for Mahon and said he would not challenge it for currently elected officials.

But future elected department heads should not get the same payout, Bennett said.

“It’s a mistake and I don’t want to perpetuate it for future elected officials,” Bennett said Thursday.

Supervisor Judy Mikels, who voted in favor of the policy in 1999, said board members were trying to put elected department heads on an even playing field with their non-elected counterparts. There are about 15 non-elected county managers entitled to similar retirement spikes.

“At the time, given all of the facts in front of us, to me it was a case of equity and fairness and common sense,” Mikels said. “So I had no problem with it. And, quite frankly, I still don’t.”

Elected officials were entitled to lump-sum vacation payouts until 1992, when a study by a blue-ribbon committee recommended abolishing them. Supervisors agreed but increased their base pay to more accurately reflect their true compensation. Those reforms, however, did not apply to dozens of non-elected county managers who kept the perk.

A second blue-ribbon committee reviewed the issue in early 1999, considering benefits and salaries for elected officials in several California counties. It urged no changes for Ventura County.

But later that year, county supervisors, with the recommendation of outgoing Chief Administrative Officer Lin Koester, voted to restore the benefit.

Agenda ‘Very Clearly Written’

The item was passed as part of the county’s consent agenda and was not debated publicly. Mikels, however, said that was not an attempt to hide the perk from public eyes.

“It still has a staff report and if [critics] don’t take the time to read the staff report, shame on them,” Mikels said. “It’s very clearly written and anytime something says ‘compensation benefits,’ what does that tell you? We’re probably talking money.”

Bennett said reinstating the benefit was the wrong thing to do because elected department heads were given a pay raise in 1992 to make up for other lost benefits.

“The reason [elected officials got] a pay raise then was to eliminate hidden benefits that spike their retirement package,” Bennett said. “Their salary went up because of what they lost and now they want what they lost back.”

For Pittman, who has been with the county for 19 years, the provision means he is eligible to receive about $600 a month on top of his regular retirement pay. And that, he said, isn’t a perk. It’s just the same deal his county colleagues enjoy. “This is a matter of equity,” he said. “Now Mr. Bennett comes in and says you’re not entitled to this. If appointeds get it, why should I be treated like a stepchild? I don’t understand his reasoning.”