Perks Are Bad Policy

At a time when county residents are being asked to pay more in taxes and settle for less in services, Supervisor Steve Bennett is right to question the wisdom of granting the county’s elected department heads an extra bonus on top of their already generous retirement pensions.

That policy is a regrettable relapse into county leaders’ long-time habit of granting themselves hidden benefits that can add up to more than their salaries.

In 1992, a Times investigation revealed that 11 top elected officials and then-Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg were receiving more than $300,000 each year in hidden benefits. A review by the Ventura County Grand Jury found more than 15 compensation benefits and perks that it termed excessive, including thousands of dollars in hidden transportation allowances, vacation, longevity and education benefits. As a result, the board formed a citizens committee whose members recommended rescinding most of the perks but increasing base salaries.

As soon as the salaries went up, the perks began creeping back.

Bennett wasn’t on the board in 1999 when supervisors added the “Elected Department Head Benefit” to the pension packages of the assessor, auditor-controller, clerk-recorder, district attorney, sheriff and treasurer-tax collector. But last week he stepped forward to propose limiting the superfluous perk to those individuals currently in office.

We support that action. If this bad policy can’t be undone--as the county attorney says--it should at least disappear with the current crop of incumbents.

This benefit 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, thereby padding the salary used to calculate retirement benefits.

We reject the premise that elected department heads should enjoy parity with appointed department heads. Retirement packages--along with vacation time and other benefits--are among the many contract details that the county must negotiate when recruiting its top managers. Those who seek the elective positions must negotiate only with the voters--by campaigning successfully for office. They know what the benefits are before they decide to run.

All of these public servants already walk away with far more than most of the private-sector folk who elected them. Any change in these benefits obviously should be discussed openly and at length.

Yet both in 1999 and again last week when it voted to start paying the cash to recently retired Auditor-Controller Tom Mahon, the Board of Supervisors buried actions on its consent calendar where discussion is not allowed. To his credit, Bennett moved the item onto the main agenda where it could be debated and called for phasing out the extra benefit as current officeholders retire.

We support putting an end to this redundant benefit for already well-compensated public servants--most of whom spent vast sums to obtain the offices they hold.

When the matter comes back to the board for further discussion later this month, we urge the full board to join Bennett in removing this unfair and unnecessary expense from the county’s financial future.