In a 4-1 vote Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors have agreed to consider a salary increase of 7%.
With Tuesdays vote, County Administrator David Twa will return March 3 with two versions of a draft ordinance increasing the salaries which would then increase from $97,483 to $104,307 which is 56.5 percent of judge’s salaries.
The raise was referred to by Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff as COLA which is similar to the 4 percent salary increase some county employees groups received in 2014 and the 3% salary increases set for July.
Editors comment: This is neither a COLA adjustment, nor an annual raise. It’s a salary increase.
Supervisor Mary Piepho was the lone vote against further discussion of a raise at a future meeting.
“Unfortunately for me, while this proposal is much more reasonable, I do not feel like we have made a convincing case yet on the issue. If we had, there would be more people in the room here to support it,” said Piepho. “Based on recent events and our current financial restraints that we heard very clearly about, I don’t feel like it’s in the best interest or the right time for the board to adjust its salary prior to adoption of a final budget and completing wage negotiations for all labor groups.”
She further highlighted the public perception and taking a raise now would not be listening to the public.
“I don’t believe based on comments this board has received from the public, labor groups, the Taxpayers Association and local media, that we have yet addressed the concern and perceptions that have been put before us,” said Piepho. “While I personally feel we do deserve a salary adjustment, the public has voiced their concern and at this time it still appears we are putting ourselves first and are not listening. If we continue to put ourselves first, we continue to jeopardize our position, our credibility, and compromise our ability to bargain reasonably going forward. It’s time to recover and build bridges.”
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff argued this increase was for the COLA and that some labor groups do not even go into negotiations until 2016.
“I think it’s appropriate with this time that we move forward with a COLA increase for Board of Supervisor Salaries which the 7% is what it would be,” said Mitchoff. “I agree with we should tie it with the judges.”
She highlighted they are tying it to a metric with the judges and a percentage of that and further highlighted they wanted to get away from setting their own salary while bargaining with their own interests.
Supervisor Candace Andersen highlighted her support of the process being proposed today stating this is the 4% she agreed to take instead of the 33% the Board approved before rescinding the pay raise.
“I would really hope we can come up with something objective to tie our salaries to. If we are going to have future increases, even CPI is a possibility. Judiciary salary is something I go back and forth on. Certainly its objective, it’s in a sense it’s not us the county setting it but my only concern is what if the State of California is doing much better than we are,” explained Andersen. “I don’t know if there is a perfect objective and benchmark out there… I would like to get out of the business of setting our own salary.”
Supervisor John Gioia stated he was confident voters would support a 1% increase for the last 7-years. He further went on to highlight how this was a full-time job.
“I believe where we are today and what would make the sense is consider taking the first issue of what is the appropriate level, taking the equivalent of what the majority of our employees received in 2014 and 2015 which is 7%,” said Gioia.
Gioia was also in favor of a establishing a commission to discuss a salary increase on the Board behalf to make suggestions.
“I do think it makes sense to create a small commission that is representative of a broad cross section of interest around the county to sort of look at this issue over the next 60-days and make some type of recommendation,” said Gioia. “Some thoughts having five different categories. Someone from the Grand Jury, someone from the Contra Costa Labor Council, someone appointed by the East Bay Leadership Council… Taxpayers Association and to cover the non-profit community, the Human Services Alliance.”
Gioia highlighted that the argument could be made that when they bargain with the employee groups, if they get a raise, the Supervisors get a raise so it can’t always be the same rates of increase of employees versus supervisors saying “that’s bargaining our own salaries in that process.”
Gioia went onto explain that linking salary to judges was an indirect way in linking to State Employees. He continued to say that while voters in 1979 gave the power to the Boards to set their own salary, he said he was not sure that was a good idea.
“That is why this commission taking a look at it and making a recommendation back, knowing that whatever action we take, say we take the 7%, linking to judges, that can always be the process being made long term based on recommendations out of this commission we set up which is a hybrid two tier process,” said Gioia.
Supervisor Mitchoff agreed with the idea of establishing a commission.
“As far as the commission, I agree with that. We have a broad cross-section and heard from the public since last October… that nobody liked the idea of us setting our own salary and that a commission seemed to be the best way to go,” explained Mitchoff. “So I am taking that advice.”
Mitchoff also stated that the groups chosen will “self-select” their own commission members for the committee and a timeline of 60-days of work for this group.
In a 5-0 vote, the Board approved establishing a committee.
Board Staff Report:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors requested a report for the February 10, 2015 Board meeting on options to consider for setting their salaries, as well as possible amount. The last time the Board increased their salaries was July 1, 2007 when they received a 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA). The Supervisors also took wage reductions of 2.75% from July 1, 2009 through July 31, 2013 along with a majority of the County Employees.
There are a variety of ways that the Counties of California set salaries for Supervisors:
- As a percentage of Superior Court Judges:
The Board has already seen information about what the Bay Area Counties and what large Urban Counties do, both as it relates to methods for setting salaries and as to current salary levels. Attached are the materials previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. A quick summary of those materials indicates that the Counties of Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma were used in the Salary Survey. Six of the eight Counties set their salaries as a percentage of that of the Superior Court Judges. Additionally, of the 12 Counties in California designated as “Urban Counties” based on population, 8
of those also set their Supervisors Salaries as a percentage of that of the Superior Court Judges. Among the 9 Bay Area Counties, Contra Costa County is the third most populous county.
Under state law, judicial salaries are linked to pay increases for other state workers. The law requires judicial salaries to increase by the average salary increase for state employees, negotiated through labor contracts. This is pursuant to provisions of California Government Code section 68203, subdivision (a). Yearly increases in judicial salaries are automatically linked to salary increases received by executive branch employees as negotiated through statewide collective bargaining agreements. After the agreements are executed, the California Department of Human Resources calculates the proposed increase amount and submits a formal Exempt Pay Letter to the Office of the State Controller.
- Some California counties continue to set Supervisors salaries by an Ordinance process.
- Some California counties use Ad Hoc Compensation Committees to recommend adjustments to Supervisors salaries. Santa Barbara County’s Ad Hoc Committee has members selected by the CEO with input by the Board of Supervisors members. Their committee consists of representatives from the taxpayers’ association, chambers of commerce, non-profits, and private sector businesses. San Luis Obispo has a similar Ad Hoc Committee.
- San Francisco City and County (a charter county) uses their Civil Service Commission to set elected officials’ salaries, including those of the Supervisors on a five-year cycle.
- The state of California uses a California Citizens Compensation Commission to set the salaries of the elected state officers, including the Governor, and members of the Legislature.
- Here is an example from another state:
“Gallatin County, MO: There is a county compensation board consisting of the county commissioners, three of the county officials described in subsection (1) appointed by the board of county commissioners, the county attorney, and two to four resident taxpayers appointed initially by the board of county commissioners to staggered terms of 3 years, with the initial appointments of one or two taxpayer members for a 2-year term and one or two taxpayer members for a 3-year term. The county compensation board shall hold hearings annually for the purpose of reviewing the compensation paid to county officers. The county compensation board may consider the compensation paid to comparable officials in other Montana counties, other states, state government, federal government, and private enterprise.
The county compensation board shall prepare a compensation schedule for the elected county officials, including the county attorney, for the succeeding fiscal year. The schedule must take into consideration county variations, including population, the number of residents living in unincorporated areas, assessed valuation, motor vehicle registrations, building permits, and other factors considered necessary to reflect the variations in the workloads and responsibilities of county officials as well as the tax resources of the county.
A recommended compensation schedule requires a majority vote of the county compensation board, and at least two county commissioners must be included in the majority. A recommended compensation schedule may not reduce the salary of a county officer that was in effect on May 1, 2001.”
Consideration of Salary level
As to what should be the salary level, there have been many suggestions from Supervisors, employee labor groups, and the general public. As to the process and an appropriate level, one of many options that the Board of Supervisors could consider would be a hybrid approach:
- Adopt an ordinance now increasing the salary by the amounts given to employees in July, 2014 (4%) plus the 3% employees will receive on July 1, 2015 (current salary of $97,483 plus 7% compounded = $104,424)
- With or without tying that amount to a % of the judge’s salary (rounding to 57% of judges salary would be $105,228)
- Appoint a ‘citizens commission’ to review and make recommendations for what would be an appropriate salary after that time (either by adjusting the percentage tied to the judges salaries or a new salary ordinance).
- Possible members of a citizens salary review commission could be representatives from some or all of the following:
- Civil Grand Jury
- Taxpayers’ Association
- East Bay Leadership Council (formerly the Contra Costa Council)
- Non-profit organizations
- Labor organizations
- Registered voters
- Mayors’ Association
8 comments
John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff are showing “50 shades of Greed”. (Shakes head in disbelief).
It’s obvious these two have been behind this salary fiasco from the beginning.
Still too high as far as I am concerned.
Nice try….My money says Mary Piepho and Karen Mitchoff were the instigators and nothing that happened in the recent meeting changes anything.
Let’s see if Mary voluntarily forgoes any increase until after the citizen’s review group determines what is reasonable. Candice Andersen let her paycheck stand by her vote; will Mary Piepho?
Laugh Koe,
You are a funny guy. I’d take your bet any day of the week. It’s common knowledge that Gioia and Mitchoff orchestrated both attempts. I guess you are out of the loop! Oh I forgot, you are infatuated with Mary Piepho. Thanks for the reminder.
And for your records, Candice Andersen never let her paycheck stand by her vote. The first action was rescinded dummy. You just can’t help yourself can you? You are pathetic!
I have to agree with previous comments. Laugh Koe has an unhealthy infatuation with the Supervisor. He mentioned her 3 times here. I’m not sure why since it made no sense.
What a creeper
I love how people react to other people, esp. public servants, who get raises. It’s comical.
When did we become such a ME FIRST people? If any of us found out we were underpaid and given the ability to correct it… we would.
We are quickly becoming the absolute period worst period generation period ever.
Remember… we get what we pay for.
Joe to Joe sometimes overpaying is a waste. Getting what you pay for without knowing what you are getting is a fools game. People need to smarten up. This generation is pretty clueless.
Supervisor Instigates a 33% Raise for Herself Then Plays The People
You can form a comparison to a County Supervisor’s position and responsibilities to that of a City Mayor. The responsibilities and duties are very similar. Both jobs are really not jobs at all.
-Conducting County Center tours for community groups, clubs and students? This is something that makes the them feel needed, it is not a responsibility. Mary chooses to take this on because it feeds her ego.
Attending ribbon cuttings and unveilings. How many of these actually happen on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis? Another ego boost where she reminds everyone she is a Supervisor.
Participating in multiple County, regional and state-wide organizations on behalf of the County, including but not limited to: Delta Restoration, ABAG, California LAFCO Association, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, Delta Six, and Vasco Road Task Force. Most of these meetings are taken on by choice. Any member can sit on many of these boards. They do because they get paid extra money. Don’t kid yourself, money is what drives this Supervisor.
A Supervisors job is not a full time job. Supervisor Mary has nothing to do so she creates things to control, meddles and gets in the way of working county staff. It’s no secret around East County.
Mary trolls the local area telling everyone she is the Supervisor and they should bid her desires. As she walks away everyone is laughing at her! Especially since she refers to himself as “the county Supervisor”, constantly talking in the third person. Wake up East County. People that deal with Supervisor Piepho fall into two categories, they either despise her or are afraid of her retaliation. She is a housewife with a high school education. In Supervisor Mary Piepho’s case the truth is stranger than fiction. She completely destroyed the way of life for East County, building an empty dreams and promises that have never come true. If you think she is apt, then you have NEVER met the woman. Yes, East County this is the very same woman who is ruining East Contra Costa County.
Comments are closed.