County Issue : Cutting Salaries

Trying to offset an estimated $36-million loss in state funding, two county supervisors have suggested cutting employee salaries by 5% and slashing fringe benefits--cuts that some employees estimate would reduce their pay by 30%. Is this a fair way for the county to make up the funding shortfall?

* Barry Hammitt: Executive director, Service Employees International Union, Local 998

Absolutely not. County employees represent approximately 1% of the population of Ventura County. Since county government is organized to provide services to all citizens in the county, why should one segment of the county population be expected to shoulder the full load of the proposed cuts? In California, we rank 47th in the nation in public employees per capita and, specifically in Ventura County, we are servicing 150,000 more citizens than we did in 1978 and we’re doing it with the same number of employees as we had then. The clients we serve are poorer, sicker, more violent, less educated, more demanding, less appreciative and probably a greater risk. My first reaction (to the proposal) was that it was pretty stupid and probably political suicide for the people who proposed it. But the more we sat and looked at the thing, what became clear was the devastating impact the proposal would have on employee morale and employee motivation. We knew the employees would feel they were not being valued for their services.

* Maggie Kildee: Ventura County supervisor

The proposal can’t be viewed as a single proposal. Some of those suggestions are illegal, some of them would decimate county departments, some of them would lead to 30% (pay) cuts for some of the employees, some would have to be negotiated (with labor unions). Some parts could be enacted right away, like no early retirement for elected officials. The decision of the Board of Supervisors was to take those suggestions to the budget committee in order to analyze their impacts. The goal is to find ways to reduce the cost in order to hurt the least number of employees and the least number of taxpayers. I’m confident that with the help of our employees, all of them--management and labor--that we will come up with a package that will meet the deficit that’s been caused by the state action. The basic problem with the proposal as it was presented was the way in which it was presented. Employees and supervisors all read about it in the newspaper with no prior opportunity to discuss or to talk about impacts, and it was devastating to the whole county family.

* John Flynn: Ventura County supervisor

Maria VanderKolk and I made a proposal, and the proposal has merit. Like all proposals, however, this one is open to debate and compromise. For employees earning under $30,000, for example, this proposal needs to be modified and those employees have to be exempted. However, we face difficult times and all of us are going to have to sacrifice. The public at large is sacrificing. There are many people in Ventura County out of work; they’re sacrificing. If we’re going to make it through this recession, we’re all going to have to participate--everyone. One of the products of this proposal is that it attracted everyone’s attention. Hopefully, some lessons were learned. Hopefully, people have a better understanding of the entire economy. Unless the economy is producing revenues, something has to give. Either we all sacrifice or a great number of us are going to be without work. So it comes down to a question of choice. How do you make up the deficit? Do you make up the deficit by giving up some, or do you make up the deficit by laying people off?

* Bonnie Isaacs: Medical case worker, County Public Health Social Services Agency

No, because it would cause excess hardship on the employees--30% is a big cut. And also, for those of us who are Ventura County employees, our pay is below parity compared to the same jobs in other counties. So we’re underpaid as it is and Ventura County is one of the highest (cost) places to live. Thirty percent of somebody’s pay is just a real shock to somebody’s budget, especially in Ventura County, where we’re just barely making it. I feel like one particular supervisor has a Marie Antoinette mentality. Like when people were saying, ‘We’re hungry, we need bread,’ and Marie Antoinette said, ‘Let them eat cake.’ I think that this supervisor doesn’t realize what we’re going through. I think the best thing would be voluntary work furloughs. Because there are those who have children, like I do. (In my job) I see a lot of red tape and it seems to cost a lot of time and money. We have senior citizens in our crowded offices waiting maybe five hours to get $10 worth of food stamps. We need to restructure our system so they don’t have to deal with that.

* H. Jere Robings: President, Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers

It would be a fair way if the cuts were distributed throughout the county. The administrative level has higher benefits and perks than those in the clerical positions, so those should be cut first. We have long argued that the benefits at the county were not only overly generous but inequitable in the way they were distributed between top management and employees. It’s apparent that the county will not be able to meet their shortfall without either reducing salaries and benefits or alternatively eliminating personnel. I supported the proposal. I had been arguing for that for 2 1/2 years--that the benefits package should have been totally rewritten. That’s when I first made that recommendation to the board. The benefits provided were far better than anything provided in the private sector. I think we should also look into the elimination of some jobs at the administrative level, rather than jobs that provide services to taxpayers. I mean the executive level, the managers, even the supervisors.