Ventura County Will Again Debate Extra Pay for Supervisors

Ventura County supervisors on Tuesday will again take up the contentious issue of cutting their pay, debating a proposed ordinance that would eliminate any extra money they receive to serve on various boards and commissions.

But at least one supervisor is vowing that pay cuts won’t happen without a fight.

Supervisor John K. Flynn, who represents Oxnard, said he deserves the roughly $2,100 he earns each year as chairman of a county tax appeals board and shouldn’t be forced to give it up.

“It takes a lot of knowledge to do the assessment appeals and I have that knowledge,” he said. “I gained it over my 25-year political life on that board. It’s not double-dipping.”

Flynn called the proposed ordinance “bad policy based on personalities” and accused Supervisor Steve Bennett of bringing up the issue to embarrass fellow board members. Bennett and Supervisor Kathy Long do not accept compensation for service on civic boards while the three other supervisors do.

But Bennett said changes to existing law are needed to assure the public that elected leaders are not taking advantage of their position. Supervisors earn $85,000 a year and should not expect to receive stipends for serving on transit, retirement and other boards, said the Ventura-based supervisor.

“When they pay us a full-time salary and we are meeting during normal business hours, I believe the public doesn’t expect us to collect any additional stipends,” Bennett said.

Flynn is personally attacking him, Bennett said, because he is unwilling to debate the merits of the proposed change.

“When you don’t have any strong argument on the policy, then you turn to inappropriate things, like attacking the motives of the person making the proposal,” said Bennett, who has called attention to a number of fiscal policies since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, there is some question whether a vote will take place Tuesday. Board Chairman Frank Schillo will be out of the state on county business and has requested that the debate be postponed.

But even if the item is delayed, it appears that three board members--Bennett, Long and Judy Mikels--favor removing board members’ discretion on whether to accept extra pay.

Current law gives supervisors the option of accepting payment for service on special boards and commissions. In July, at Bennett’s urging, supervisors agreed to review that policy.

It’s not the first time that supervisors have haggled over compensation. The board has been chipping away at its salary package since 1992, when The Times published a series of stories exposing more than $300,000 in hidden benefits being taken by supervisors and six other elected officials.

A citizens committee later recommended that supervisors rescind most of the perks but said their pay should be set at 65% of a Superior Court judge. In 1999, the board raised that formula to 70% but eliminated another travel perk.

County Executive Officer Johnny Johnston agreed that compensation for service on special boards should also be eliminated. In a report to supervisors, Johnston estimated the county would save $2,700 annually.

While Mikels said she agrees with the proposed change, the Simi Valley supervisor wants to know if stipend checks made out to her can instead go to the county’s treasury. The $1,400 she earns annually for serving on the Southern California Assn. of Governments board could then be turned over to the county, Mikels said.

“The county pays dues to be part of that organization and I don’t want the county to lose out,” she said.

Schillo said he also has a number of concerns, both legal and financial, and will ask that Johnston do a more comprehensive analysis before any vote is taken.

A spokesman for a county taxpayers group said he doesn’t think the extra compensation is a big deal. If supervisors put in extra hours preparing for meetings, they should be entitled to the pay, said Don Facciano, executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn.

Bennett said the amounts involved could potentially be substantial. If all five supervisors took every stipend available, and then used the extra cash to pad retirement benefits, the county’s budget would take a $20,000 hit, he said.