Committee Recommends Pay Raise for Supervisors

A citizens advisory committee recommended Thursday night raising the rate of compensation by 5% for Ventura County supervisors--their first increase in seven years.

The Board of Supervisors will vote on the recommendation within a month.

Currently, supervisors are paid at the rate of 65% of the yearly salary of a Superior Court judge. Members of the Blue Ribbon Salary Committee voted 3 to 1 to raise that rate to 70%.

Under the recommendation, board members’ annual salary would increase from $71,897 to $75,173 this year. Supervisors would then receive raises when judges did, up to 5% a year.

“That seems rather reasonable,” Supervisor John K. Flynn said upon hearing the recommendation. “That was my original idea. I didn’t need a blue ribbon committee to tell me that.”

Flynn had suggested in February that the rate be increased to 70%, but the board majority wanted to form a committee to study the issue and make recommendations.

“A blue ribbon committee is a phony way to get a raise in my view,” Flynn said. “The board should have simply said, ‘We think we should get a raise,’ instead of taking the phony approach and saying a blue ribbon committee suggested it.”

In February, when the committee was formed, it marked the first time that board members sought a pay increase since being criticized several years ago for failing to maintain tight control over their perks and benefits.

In 1992, the issue sparked public outcry after a Times survey showed that 11 top elected officials and then-Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg received more than $300,000 annually in hidden benefits.

A subsequent investigation by the Ventura County Grand Jury found more than 15 compensation benefits and perks that it termed excessive, including thousands of dollars in hidden transportation allowances, vacation, longevity and education benefits.

As a result, the board formed a citizens committee, whose members recommended rescinding most of the perks but increasing supervisors’ base salary. Supervisors then passed an ordinance to that effect.

Besides considering pay for supervisors, current committee members are studying increases for six elected department heads: Assessor Dan Goodwin, who earns an annual base salary of $112,838; Auditor-Controller Tom Mahon, $121,290; county Clerk-Recorder Richard Dean, $103,583; Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, $133,787; Sheriff Bob Brooks, $139,141; and Treasurer-Tax Collector Harold Pittman, $104,940.

Members decided on the supervisors’ salary in its third meeting. A meeting last week was canceled when only one member, Mike Saliba, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., attended.

The other committee members are Linda White, executive director of the Boys & Girls Club of Simi Valley; Sue Chadwick of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in Ventura; Mike Montoya, Southern California Edison regional manager; Penny Bohannon, executive director of the Ventura County Economic Development Assn.; and Ken Corney, president of the Ventura Police Officers Assn.

The vote was cast Thursday night after the four committee members present--Saliba, Bohannon, Montoya and Corney--debated the necessity of a raise for supervisors.

On Monday, members will discuss benefit changes for supervisors and debate rate changes for the department heads.

At the meeting, Human Resources Director Barbara Journet presented a study comparing salary and benefits of the supervisors with counterparts in seven Southern California counties.

It showed that Ventura County supervisors earn a mean base salary of 14.7% less than the other counties.

Saliba, who dissented in the vote, wanted to keep the present rate of compensation.

“We’re not out of the ballpark with Santa Barbara, Kern and even San Bernardino counties,” Saliba said. “It doesn’t seem to me that our supervisors are out of their range.”

“I’m not sure we should compare ourselves to Kern County just because our population is close,” Corney countered. “Our issues are more complex. . . . We need the best people to be called to public service, especially if that person is going to leave his or her job.”

Saliba disagreed. “This position is a matter of public service. It’s not the same thing as a career path, like an employee moving through a department to become a department head.”

“I wouldn’t have a problem with 70%,” Bohannon said. “It’s not that much of an increase.”

“We need to do something to set our county apart,” Corney added. “We’re not like Kern County. We’re a lot more progressive.”