Supervisors to Consider Pay Raises

Ventura County supervisors are set to renew a law that would give them automatic pay raises -- a perk they have ended for most county employees.

Under a proposed ordinance to be discussed Tuesday, supervisors would get a 2.9% raise, entitling each to a new base salary of $100,687. Additional increases would be granted, without a vote, whenever the pay of Superior Court judges goes up.

The proposed law duplicates a previous compensation ordinance adopted in 1999 that linked supervisors’ pay to that of Superior Court judges. A citizens committee at the time recommended that supervisor pay be set at 70% of a judge’s base salary, and that it be increased, to a maximum of 5% annually, whenever judges’ pay goes up.

That pact expired in December 2003, requiring supervisors to approve a new one. Supervisor Kathy Long said it made sense to adopt essentially the same ordinance because the first one was based on recommendations made by a blue-ribbon citizens committee that studied the issue.

“It just reenacts what has been in place for many years,” Long said. “It removes the board’s hands from setting their own salary.”

In the years since the 1999 ordinance, however, a new board majority has instituted a number of austerity measures aimed at reining in spending. The board eliminated a provision favored by unions that gave workers pay increases whenever compensation went up for workers in similar jobs in neighboring cities and counties.

Supervisors argued that such “parity” contracts put payroll spending on autopilot, limiting the board’s ability to control expenses. While the proposed ordinance does much the same thing, board members say it is necessary because setting their own salary is controversial.

“People who can’t stand politicians are always going to rail, no matter how you set the formula,” said Supervisor Judy Mikels. “But others understand that the compensation is fair for a board running a billion-dollar corporation.”

Don Facciano, executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., said he found the pay formula within reason. The taxpayers group was represented on the citizens panel that came up with the earlier pay structure, he said.

The panel was convened by supervisors after a taxpayers advocate questioned generous pay and benefits enjoyed by supervisors and other top county officials.

Besides taking pay out of supervisors’ hands, the panel recommended the reduction or elimination of a number of perks, Facciano said.

“We should always look at the total package,” he said. “I’m more concerned about pensions than base pay.”

Since the 1999 ordinance was enacted, supervisors have been entitled to average annual raises of 3.8%. Two supervisors, Steve Bennett and Linda Parks, have refused past increases and said last week that they would continue to do so.

But Bennett and Parks support the adoption of the earlier formula, saying it is probably the best way to set salaries.

“This went through a citizens review process, and it seems like an acceptable practice,” said Parks, a former Thousand Oaks councilwoman. “I’ve seen in other municipalities where council members try to give themselves double-digit raises. This ordinance makes that impossible.”