Public agency board poised to grant itself paid benefits, more expensable activities

Elected officials at one public agency are considering ramping up the benefits they receive for the public service they provide — including paid healthcare and a broader range of allowable expenses — even as community members question such a move.

Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District are exploring the cost of providing its five-member board with medical coverage through CalPERS or, alternatively, monthly stipends that could be applied to private insurance or MediCare-related policies.

The former would require ongoing contributions from the public agency, while the latter would cost the ratepayer-funded district up to $51,600 annually, according to staff estimates.

Officials in a regular meeting Monday agreed to conduct further review and amend the list of allowable meetings and events upward to 31, for which directors may receive $295 in per diem pay.

Talks come as two relative newcomers among a cohort of long-tenured directors seek to clarify, and perhaps redefine, board members’ roles, commitment and how much directors receive compared to other special districts.

While one former CMSD director received benefits prior to 2016 through CalPERS, he paid out of pocket for the coverage. Director Shayanne Wright, who seeks to reinstate benefits, pointed out Monday that 11 out of 13 neighboring special districts pay up to $2,200 monthly per person for such coverage.

“It brings the district in line with standard public sector practices and demonstrates a reasonable investment into effective governance,” Wright said of the reinstatement.

Administrative services manager Dyana Wick clarified that elected or appointed board members are not eligible for CMSD’s cafeteria plan, adding that expanding participation could create “administrative and compliance issues.”

Mike Moodian, a lecturer of leadership studies and public policy researcher for Chapman University, said part-time office holders should not be entitled to benefits not offered to part-time employees.

“A part-time sanitation worker, or a person who’s a crossing guard — you don’t see these individuals with full-time benefits,” he said Wednesday. “If a part-time board starts awarding itself benefits, it could set a precedent with long-term costs for a small district.”

Also Monday, board members discussed which events should qualify for $295 in per diem attendance pay. Some had been seeking payment for one-on-one meetings with CMSD General Manager Scott Carroll and were paid, though such confabs aren’t officially sanctioned.

Staff recommends general manager meetings be covered moving forward. But Sue Lester, chair of the district’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee, speaking in her capacity as a Costa Mesa resident, questioned the many improperly funded meetings already compensated.

Reviewing board members’ publicly filed expense reports dating back to July 26, 2021, and cataloged online, Lester counted 151 claims that veered from policy-approved events, though not all were paid.

Payouts for unapproved meetings were tallied at 78 — amounting to just over $23,000.

“If there are, in fact, meetings that were compensated that shouldn’t have been, I would like to see the board take some kind of action to recoup that money,” Lester said.

Flo Martin, a 59-year resident of the city, said she’s logged more than 10,000 hours as a retired teacher without once seeking compensation.

“For decades as an educator, I attended conferences on my own dime. I took field trips with my students on my own dime,” she said. “I never once received a penny for any extra duty events.”

While increasing board members’ per diem pay was not on Monday’s docket, Wright said CMSD would be within its right to do so, in accordance with state law and given neighboring districts already pay benefits and higher per diem rates.

Fellow director Nicole Wiltshire said higher compensation might help attract more working residents to the board, diversifying its reputation.

“If we don’t make this role attractive to working people, then we’re not going to have working people representing us,” she said.

Moodian said that’s a common argument given by elected officials but not something generally favored by the taxpaying public.

“Even when something may be legal, it can still raise real governance and public trust concerns,” he said of proposed hikes. “I think a reasonable person might look at this and say, that’s too much.”