The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to increase their salaries by 7%. The Board also created an ad-hoc committee to discuss future pay
With two options in front of them, the Board chose Option 1 which provides for a 7% salary increase, effective June 1, 2015, for members of the Board of Supervisors which impacts the budget by $50,900 of which $13,125 is pension cost. The estimated annual cost for all five Board members of any 1% salary increase thereafter is $7,790.
County Supervisors will now make $104,307 each year. The 7% increase was based on a 4% general COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) granted to employees on July 1, 2014 plus a 3% COLA that employees will receive on July 1, 2015.
Philip Hu, Local 1, registered a concern about a portion of the ordinance calling the process getting this raise going was confusing saying an ordinance with two options made little sense.
“Option 1 is straight forward and clean. It’s simple and reasonable and is what most employees got. I don’t think many people would object to this,” said Hu. “Option 2 muddies the water a little bit. It’s a 7 percent raise and ties your salaries to 56.5% of judges. I strongly urge you to vote for Option 1 and soundly reject Option 2. Frankly, having Option 2 is ignoring the will of the voters whos supported this referendum.”
He further argued that by tying the Supervisor salary to judges, he explained that there was no point of a citizens committee because the decision had already been made on salary increases.
Felix Huerta, AFSCME 512, highlighted his concern for Option 2.
“We believe most employees received 4% and will receive 3% and we support the clean version. The second version, we believe the ad-hoc committee really needs to do some work,” said Huerta. “We believe that will really help you get some concerns from the community as described by the referendum.”
Supervisor Candace Andersen recommended going ahead with Option 1 because if they were going ahead with a committee that it is coming back in July.
“It seems very silly to impose a bench mark,” said Andersen. “I would be very reticent to want us to have judges salary between now and July to get us another bump. I’d rather wait for the committee to come back and indicate their concerns. There is no reason not to go to version A.”
Supervisor Mitchoff supported the 7% increase and the will of the Board.
“It’s the old be careful what you wish for. What goes around comes around and what’s old is new again,” explained Mitchoff.
Mitchoff went into the history of how it went from State Control, to Local control and backlash from the will of the public in the 1970’s. She noted this has nothing to do with qualifications of judges versus supervisors, but rather just a benchmark.
“Had I known we could have done a commission in October, I would have advocated for that,” said Mitchoff. “I did not know we had the option and so hindsight is 20-20. I do support tying us to the judges because this is a COLA but I will go with the will of the board.”
Supervisor Mary Piepho stated she was not supporting either item.
“It really doesn’t matter what I think about this issue. We have heard from the public and they have expressed greater engagement on the decision making. The ad-hoc committee will be meeting shortly and we should wait for the outcome of that and what comes forward,” said Piepho.
Supervisor John Gioia says this is a metric of how to move forward because no one likes to set their own salary.
“This power was given to our board by the voters in the 1970s by an initiative,’ said Gioia. What we have been searching for is after this adjustment of 7% is how do we do adjustments with how we are not involved with. That is the issue, so we do not have to make a decision on our own salary.”
Gioia noted that he would leave it to the committee to make some suggestions on future salary increases.
Prior to a Board Vote, Supervisor Mitchoff asked Supervisor Piepho if she would be taking the salary increase since she indicated she would be voting no if she would sign the waiver not to take the increase.
“Respectfully, as we saw through the last process, it was referendum in the middle of it so the process so there is no guarantee this will go into effect by June 1. The process is still in play,” said Piepho.
Mitchoff followed up asking if she would answer that question after the process.
“I will make the decision at the appropriate time,” responded Piepho.
The Board approved the Ordinance 3-1 with Piepho voting no. The item will come back at their next meeting for a second reading for an adoption on March 10.
Board Creates Ad-Hoc Committee to Look at Board of Supervisor Salary
In another action, the board voted 4-0 to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation. The Ad Hoc Committee will report its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on July 7, 2015.
Costs to staff and facilitate Committee meetings are estimated not to exceed $28,800. Meeting stipends and mileage reimbursement are estimated not to exceed $3,000 in total.
6 comments
This is such a waste of time. Give them the COLA and move on. I see people trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Supervisor Mitchoff sounds bitter, Gioia has a case of the entitlement going on, Andersen seems confused about the raise and Piepho has flipped. They are all doomed in their next election.
I was pointed to this page from CLAYCORD and the reporting is night and day. This is more updated and better recap. Claycord must hate the BOS or feels like he wants to mislead the public.
I really do not care about the raise, but the way the Board and Local 1 is acting, replace them all.
Jim, that was perfect. Piepho is a flopper and is only trying to save her seat. I am so sick of listening to John Giaia speak up to the public about how smart he is and how he hates giving himself a raise. Hey John Gioia then dont give yourself a raise you babbling fool. No raise period, that is the taxpayer money out there.
Thank you Supervisor Mitchoff for asking Supervisor Piepho that question. Notice she punted into next year. They all will pay for there greed at the ballot box.
Mary Piepho’s opposition next year is Wade Harper of Antioch. He is already fundraising. Mary, I hope you are locked and loaded for this one. We cannot elect Harper as supervisor.
None of them are doomed. They go years, almost decades without a change in pay, making the percentages large when a change is made. In the end they end up making an amount that is commensurate with the job title. After a 60 percent move in 2006 all were easily re-elected. The majority of the voting public obviously understands. It’s no secret that the action against the supervisors raises was driven by the unions. The same underhanded union shanaigans are taking place in the senate race between union shills (Bonilla and Buchannon) and moderate democrat Steve Glazier. They have become desperate.
Harper doesn’t stand a chance. He is barely holding onto his position in Antioch, at least two recall actions have been launched against him, he has no name ID outside of Antioch, (the few that know of him, wouldn’t vote for him). If he raises any money, expect it to come from unions-and that comes with a high price. Incumbents keep funding and support constant, and Mary Piepho is no stranger to how this works. Based on her former races, she has support from community leadership from both parties and all the major contributors locked up along with a rather large campaign war chest. Keller, Agopian and a host of others with much better track records than Harper, figured this out and took a pass. Even a very well funded Assemblyman (Guy Houston) with unlimited money left over from his previous campaign fund raising, tried once and was beaten like a red headed step child. While the unions may be desperate to find a candidate, they know Harper can’t win. Harper is wasting his time and fooling himself. Maybe feeding his ego? From what I hear he does that a lot. Rest easy Julio.
Comments are closed.