Home Contra Costa County Candidate For 7th Senate District Supports Contra Costa County Supervisor Referendum

Candidate For 7th Senate District Supports Contra Costa County Supervisor Referendum

by ECT

California State Senate Candidate Mark Meuser affirmed his support of a union led referendum to allow voters to accept or reject a 33% raise by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

Meuser, who is running as the Republican Candidate against Democrats Susan Bonilla and Joan Buchanan for Mark DeSaulnniers seat, is finding himself standing with unions on this issue.

Following a vote by Contra Costa County Supervisors to receive a 33% pay raise, the Deputy Sheriffs Association of Contra Costa and the Contra Costa Public Employees Union have now come together to pass a referendum and put a hold on the impending 33% pay raise. Likewise, they will be taking this issue before the voters.

Meuser suggests that people would prefer politicians who would be willing to work with others on issues rather than being closed off due to political ideology.

According to a Press Release, Meuser will be using this referendum as an opportunity to show voters his position that when there is an issue he agrees with, he does not care as much about party as much as he does about making a difference. For Meuser, making a positive difference surpasses all else and he desires for the voters to choose for themselves whether or not an issue should be accepted or rejected.

“I support good common sense government and if you support the same, then I will be your ally. I believe that when politicians make a vote that is in their own self-interest, then they need to be held accountable,” Meuser said. “I believe that one can be a gentleman when it comes to politics because you never know when your enemy today is going to be your friend tomorrow. I may disagree with the public employees union on the issue of pension reform but I do agree with them today that the county Supervisors should not have given themselves a 33% pay raise.”

Proponents of the referendum are working together with Meuser to obtain 32,000 signatures by Jan. 2, 2015 in order to get his referendum on the 2016 ballots. Contra Costa voters will be able to sign the petition outside the BART, the mall or the grocery store from individuals carrying clip boards.

The petitions are also available at the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association’s office, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association’s office or you can obtain the petition online by contacting: [email protected].

You may also like

19 comments

JimSimmons42 Dec 16, 2014 - 4:43 pm

This guy is a clown. He got spanked by DeSaulnier a few years ago and is back to get spanked by any democrat candidate. His press release is nothing mroe than common sense to anyone paying attention to the Supervisors raise. Maybe Mr. Clown (I mean Meuser) should run for County Supervisor instead of Senate if he feels so strongly about it.

Worthless Supervisors Dec 16, 2014 - 6:22 pm

I was happy to sign a petition today to repeal the outrageous 33% raise the supervisors have themselves. Hope it passes and common sense wins out.

Trevor Dec 16, 2014 - 7:54 pm

I wonder why the editor of this media does not follow with the rest of the media and public providing a link to sign the petition? Afraid of getting spanked?

julio Dec 16, 2014 - 8:24 pm

They are doing very well with the petition! We were more than ha to sign it.

Anon Dec 18, 2014 - 1:51 pm

This is all very amusing. Mark Meuser didn’t do his homework if he thinks he is helping taxpayers or unions. He has only proven that he’s capable of blindly jumping onto an issue. In either case, he certainly won’t be our next Senator. Surely he is familiar with lost causes.

In the end it will be the unions that take the hit. No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t end well for the unions, they simply haven’t figured that out. In time they will.
The referendum, if successful would cost taxpayers over 2 million dollars in balloting costs (a little fact which the union has purposely omitted from citizens in their zest to collect signatures). This will be made public and irreversibly damage the unions: strike one.

If the signatures qualify the BOS will likely pull the ordinance and reintroduce it again. The unions will have wasted not only their members time, but their money as well. The unions had to resort to hiring outside signature gathers to run this effort: strike two.

One can surmise that telling your bosses that there isn’t enough money for 5 positions, will put the unions squarely in a no raise situation in future negotiations…nada, nothing, zilch, zero: strike three.

Its really too bad that many people that have been misled into thinking this was an effort to protect the citizens and taxpayers of CC county. Unfortunately many did not think things through enough to realize this is nothing more than a UNION led effort, which has nothing to do with protecting taxpayers. The bottom line is that a salary adjustment for 5 top managers doesn’t even begin to register on the county payroll. The unions and their membership provides for over 600 million dollar payroll cost and therefore their salary increases do cause a substantial impact on the county coffers. This is all public record! The unions purely rely on the average citizen signing onto their petition-referendum out of reaction to a constructed 33% figure they provided. What they are not telling you that the 33% was an aggregate figure from almost a decade of suspended pay adjustments. The adjustment of the 5 supervisors pales in comparison to a referendum inclusive of over 2 million in taxpayer borne costs! Unfortunately people don’t invest the time to really know what they are signing, and you can bet your bottom dollar the unions rely on that.

If you watched the BOS meeting on Tuesday it was made clear that sweeping pension reform would be served up early next year. I’m sure the union membership will be less than pleased that their union bosses led them all right off a proverbial cliff.

Makes you wonder what were they thinking and why anyone would sign a petition with out understanding what is really at stake.

If you have any remaining doubt, do your homework and/or read the following editorial.
It is a much better fact based editorial than the biased one that Dan Borenstein provided in the CCTimes:

http://ca-contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/34059

CaptainKlutz Dec 19, 2014 - 11:11 am

Anon – Which Supervisor are you?

Anon Dec 19, 2014 - 11:17 pm

CaptainKlutz, Thanks for the “compliment” but I’m simply a union hack just like you. The biggest difference between you and I, is that I don’t drink the union kook aid. I think for myself & I’m more inclined to focus on the message rather than the messenger.

You should try it sometime.

CaptainKlutz Dec 21, 2014 - 9:43 pm

I’m not in a union…have never been in one and am not sure I’d want to be. I don’t begrudge the employees their anger though. It’s justified. These clowns ran for Supervisor to perform a public service and knew what the pay was when they got there. Now they’ve decided it’s not enough and unlike you or me, they’ve decided what that new amount should be.

If they had limited themselves to the same small increases employee groups had gotten along with the accompanying increases in costs passed to employees, I probably wouldn’t mind. However, they just couldn’t resist the opportunity to really enrich themselves. The voters should have a chance right now to say whether or not they’re worth it.

Was the insult really called for?

Anon Dec 22, 2014 - 2:17 pm

Their anger is justified? I must have missed that vote. I believe it is better described as jealousy. To me that is not a sufficient excuse to push a one time referendum which will cost taxpayers over 2 million dollars in election costs. Are you as a taxpayer happy with that? Remember, it’s a one time referendum subject to being dismissed by a reconsideration from the board. There is nothing to prevent the supervisors from reintroducing it within days. It’s spelled out in the law, but the unions don’t want you to know what is really at play here. They are relying on ignorance. We are talking about a overdue pay adjustment for 5 individuals, not the hundreds of members of the state assembly, state senate or even congress. These are the 5 top spots of management in our county. Additionally as I understand it, the current statewide law is that supervisors must adjust their own pay because their isn’t other supervising authority over them and to put increases to annual vote is cost prohibitive. So yeah, they are in an uncomfortable position of having to adjust their own pay. The reality demonstrates that it’s why these adjustments only occur every decade which result in double digit increases. If other workers only received pay adjustments 2 or 3 times during their careers, they too would be in the double digits. I personally began my career at 18k a year and currently make in excess of 100k. You do the math.

We don’t live in the 1970s. Earning over 100k as a manager in the Bay Area is at the bottom of the scale in most cases. Last time I checked the a Board of Supervisor position is the county’s top management spot. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of pay being commensurate with title and responsibilities.

You will find no successful business model (public or private) where the lead managers make the same or in this case less in many cases, than represented employees. Suggesting that increases should be administered at the same percentages across the board between management and employees is just short of ridiculous. Do you really believe companies operate that way? Do you honestly believe the unions that brought this forward, did it for no other reason than to create leverage for negioatiations? Do you think this was a smart move by the unions? If you do you are only fooling yourself. If they had limited themselves to what other “employee groups” received they would have fallen even farther behind which results in a larger gap to be closed going forward.

Apparently you have not taken the time to review the situation or digest the facts. Obviously you were not aware that it is a normal occurrence for county supervisors to adjust their own pay, this is not an “annual” raise, they are not “represented” employees. Nor aware of the salary ranges of Bay Area managers, salary ranges of elected officials, salary ranges of county managers and the list goes on. What do you think a school district superintendent gets paid for running a school district 1/100th the size of the county? Do you even know? They are paid with the very same tax dollars. Do us all a favor and read this editorial below. It spells it out pretty clearly to anyone really wishing to be educated. You might be surprised. Beyond that you are only further victimized by ignorance.

http://ca-contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/34059

If you tell your boss you think they deserve zero, what do you think you will receive in return? It’s really not that difficult to figure out, even for a Klutz.

Jerry Lee Dec 18, 2014 - 2:07 pm

Since when do State Senators/candidates begin meddling with county supervisors policy. Proof Meuser is not a good candidate and is just pandering to the media and unions for vote. Typical politician, Go run for Supervisor if one feels that strongly about a pay raise.

Stop the Greed Dec 23, 2014 - 12:29 am

I have been told the Supes will take advantage of the opportunity to reconsider their self imposed raises before any expensive election.

That so-called editorial Anon keeps putting forth doesn’t show who or what editorial board wrote it. But it does imply that Sup Andersen won’t refuse the increase that she ‘conveniently’ voted against. Well, she has turned it down, and that vote was courageous not convenient.

When the Supes vote to rescind the raise let’s hope Anon comes back and takes note of how completely wrong she was.

Also, remember each Supe only has a handful of reports, and they are in their own staffs….mostly getting ready for their next election. The County workers all report witness their own management structure where a single person is ultimately responsible for their work product. The five member Supe board SHARE responsibility for OVERSIGHT. That’s a far cry from direct reporting responsibility.

Anon Dec 24, 2014 - 12:26 am

Stop The Greed,

It is difficult to help those who can’t help themselves, but in this case I’ll give it another try. (I posted the link to the editorial TWICE. Once in each of my previous posts). I’m not sure if you couldn’t see the link or clicking on it was beyond your skill set. I have no idea who wrote it, but what was clear was its objectivity. As for the rest of your assumptions regarding the supervisors, their duties and responsibilities, you obviously don’t know your subject matter. Job shadow any one of the supervisors and you will likely discover how wrong you are. Trying to educate you any other way is simply a waste of time.

Here is the link once again (I found it on the internet): http://ca-contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/34059

Supervisor Anderson can’t turn down the raise because it hasn’t taken effect. Furthermore since the raise was actually a pay adjustment for the last 8 years of working without a raise, an argument can be made that she doesn’t deserve it because she’s hasn’t earned it. She has been on the board less than 2 years. Her comments during the discussion of the pay ordinance were disingenuous and politically motivated. Anyone following local politics saw it for what it was. She foolishly alienated herself from the board that she must work with for at least two more years. It was a rookie mistake from the rookie supervisor but it wasn’t her first and won’t be her last. She should have stayed on the Danville town council where their biggest duty is patting each other on the back and trying to look important.

If you are truly concerned about greed, why would you worry about the salary of 5 people compared to thousands of union workers. (The supervisors pay is counted in thousands, the unions pay is counted in millions). Turns out this action is all about greed, but not by the supervisors. The union(s) surely wanted to use this as a method of extortion, but it is failing miserably. Unfortunately you fell for their tactics. Fortunately the Supervisors didn’t. I’ll be sure to report and comment on that as it continues to unfold. Bet on it.

Oversight? I’ll wager you overlooked that while all county supervisors have 100 percent of the responsibility for the county, each one is also elected by their district. They have one hundred percent accountability and responsibility of over 1 million residents. Your rankings suggest you really don’t know how it works.

IF or when the supervisors “reconsider” the ordinance, the points would be twofold. Most important it would demonstrate that the board has always held the power on this issue (not the unions) and that all that has occurred here is the unions spent political capital, financial capital and volunteer capital just to shoot themselves directly in the foot. In the case of the union(s), there is no rescinding their action short of not turning in the required amount of signatures (the equivalent of 2 percent of the county’s population). If the union is stupid enough to turn them in then they will deserve the next “actions” that follow. Short and long term. Hard to believe anyone would expect anything else.

Stop the Greed Dec 24, 2014 - 5:46 pm

Anon’s unatributable “editorial” is not an editorial but rather talking points created by a partisan. That doesn’t diminish their value as partisan talking points, but editorials are written by editors or boards of publications.

Does she have to insult to make a point?

I love her idea that the raise is actually a pay adjustment for the last eight years of working without a raise and Andersen hasn’t earned it because she’s been on the board less than two years. That’s thinking outside the box!

Glad there aren’t too many people like her voting.

As for Andersen or the Union shooting themselves in the foot, I bet the opposite is true. Both gained credibility with a majority of the public.

Anon Dec 25, 2014 - 1:57 am

Greed,

Thanks for providing me so many opportunities here. Kudos as well for making yourself look so bad.

For starters, the link is titled: “Editorial: Putting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Pay Increase into Perspective”. Yet it’s not an Editorial according to you. Glad you believe you are an expert on journalism. Anyone with 1/2 an ounce of computer skill can trace it back to the source. More to the point, I didn’t know who the individual that wrote it was nor did I really care. What was important was the message. Sorry that went over your head.

You insulted yourself. You didn’t need me to to it for you. But again, that too was obviously lost on you. Going forward you may want to quit trying to play the martyr on the internet.

The reality of this being a pay adjustment instead of being a raise is not limited to my opinion. It is what it is. You obviously bought into union talking points rather than observing the meeting, digesting the issue and reviewing the facts. Andersen hasn’t enough tenure to have “earned the adjustment” which is also a fact. Facts bother you during debate? That’s a painful way to get through life.

Anderson is in for an education as to what happens when you attempt this kind of political stunt. It’s not the first time. She is no friend of the unions and now has alienated herself from her fellow board members. If you watched the BOS meetings (especially over the last few weeks) you would see how obvious that is. She made her bed, and now she will have to lie in it. As you said, “Glad there are not too many people like her voting”. If I were to guess she will be on the short end of many 4-1 votes going forward. Not smart.

You really want to bet? Just like the unions and supervisor Andersen, you don’t have a long game. No wonder you think this will end well for them. It won’t. Andersen has to now work with a board that doesn’t appear to like her and the union has to deal with that same board that has reason to bury them. Watch and learn. Both the union and Andersen temporarily duped the public, however as they say; “time is the great equalizer”.

Tick tock.

Stop the Greed Dec 26, 2014 - 7:49 pm

I’m not sure why this Anon lady uses so many words to attack and offend. I do understand her point though, there is no difference between an editorial and an opinion someone post to the Internet.

Coolio! I can live with that.

I am glad that Andersen is more concerned about representing her constituents that keeping favor with the other sups. It can’t be fun for the other sups to see the public’s opinion being represented so clearly For them, so I do expect a couple of them to carry some grudge forward. I guess they can resent Andersen and the public all at the same time. In that sense, Andersen is in good company.

Anon Dec 27, 2014 - 3:28 pm

@Stop the Greed,

Congrats, you’ve reached “troll” status!

CaptainKlutz Dec 27, 2014 - 5:24 pm

Since nobody’s opinion but yours matters, I think the same could be said for you, “Anon”.

CaptainKlutz Dec 27, 2014 - 5:25 pm

Since you seem to feel that nobody’s opinion but yours matters, I think you hit the same status awhile ago, “Anon”.

Anon Dec 27, 2014 - 7:53 pm

Apparent you can’t tell fact from option. Go figure.

Comments are closed.