Supervisors to Consider Pay Raises for Themselves

Several years after being criticized for failing to rein in “excessive perks,” Ventura County supervisors are considering a new round of pay raises.

Supervisors are set to decide today whether to set up a committee to make recommendations on possible salary and benefit increases for themselves and elected department heads.

The compensation issue has been a politically sensitive one for the board since a 1992 Times survey showed that 11 top elected officials and then-Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg received more than $300,000 in extra benefits annually.

The Ventura County Grand Jury later looked into the issue and cited more than 15 compensation benefits and perks that it said were excessive, including thousands of dollars in hidden transportation allowances and vacation, longevity and education benefits.

The board eventually rescinded most of the perks and raised supervisors’ base pay, which is now at $71,897 annually.

Responding to the latest proposal, Supervisor John Flynn said he might vote against establishing a committee and suggest a pay rate increase that would amount to about a $5,000 salary increase this year.

“It’s expensive to be a supervisor,” Flynn said. “I’m not being a crybaby; I love my job. I don’t know how the public’s going to react to this, but I do know that we don’t have very much damn money.”

If early indications are any measure, the supervisors could be in for another rough ride. “So supervisors want a pay raise--have they no shame?” said Jere Robings, who in 1992 was president of the now-defunct Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers. “Perhaps they’re counting on the public’s lack of memory of past events.”

A nine-member salary review committee was first established in October 1992, in the wake of public criticism over revelations in the Times analysis.

Three months after it was formed, the original Blue Ribbon Salary Review Committee recommended that supervisors be paid 65% of the yearly salary of a Superior Court Judge. Shortly afterward, the board passed an ordinance to that effect.

If Flynn’s proposal were accepted, that figure would rise to 70%. Current extra benefits include $50,000 in life insurance, $4,500 a year in an automobile allowance, plus mileage. There is another $4,824 per year in retirement compensation, $6,422 per year for health care, plus participation in a 401(k) savings plan and additional compensation for serving on special boards and commissions.

Supervisor Frank Schillo said it’s time to review salaries. The economy is good and the county is no longer in debt.

“I would not have wanted to review it until now,” Schillo said. “We’ve straightened ourselves out financially, and for the first time in years we are in the black.”

Since 1992, supervisors have received small raises whenever the judges were given pay increases. This will be the first time the board has considered changing the rate of compensation.

Supervisor Judy Mikels said a salary review committee might recommend no salary or benefits increases.

“I don’t look at it as a potential raise, I look at it as keeping the debate in front of the public,” Mikels said, adding that county officials are also studying the salaries of department managers and comparing them to counterparts in other Southern California counties.

“It makes perfect sense to look at salaries from the top to the bottom,” Mikels said. “If the committee says, ‘I don’t think we should get a raise,’ I can live with that.”

County staff will recommend using the same people who sat on the original committee. Among them were Tom Bryson, Southern California Edison’s general manager of the north coast region; retired Judge John Hunter; J. Roger Myers, Ventura County Bar Assn. president; and Marshall Mulligan, Bank of A. Levy president.

Robings said the salary review comes at a particularly inopportune time, considering the failed merger of the welfare and mental health departments could cost taxpayers up to $15 million in federal reimbursements.

“In the real world, you get a performance evaluation before you get a pay raise,” said Robings. “Their record has been horrible.”