At its previous meetings, the Committee arrived at a consensus on the following points:
-
The job of County Supervisor should be compensated as a full time job
-
The salary should not be tied to a judge or any position not related or comparable to a County Supervisor
-
The salary should not be tied to another County job classification
-
An independent commission should review the Board’s salary at regular intervals
-
The Board’s salary should be based on the duties and responsibilities of the position rather than on performance of the official (performance to be decided by the electorate)
-
While salary is not the guiding factor for Supervisorial candidates, it should not be so low as to be a barrier to public service and should be high enough to attract good candidates
-
The methodology for future salary setting should embody the leadership principle of sharing the pain during tough times
-
The methodology for future salary setting should attempt to de-politicize the determination of Board compensation
-
A commission should review the Board’s salary every three years.
-
No automatic salary escalator, such as CPI or general employee wage increase, should be applied between BOS salary reviews.
-
The following counties should be used for comparison, on the basis of general population, unincorporated area population, and budget: Alameda, San Mateo, Sacramento, Fresno, Kern, Ventura, Sonoma, and San Francisco
-
Compensation excluding county contributions to future benefits (such as retirement and deferred compensation) for other counties should be corrected for geographic cost of living differences. For the current analysis, the Committee will rely on data from RelocationEssentials.com and the U.S. Census.
-
The comparison should be based on salary plus the following additional elements of compensation: county normal contribution to pension, county contribution to health/dental coverage, deferred compensation or like benefit, auto allowance, and any other cash benefit. Retiree health, life insurance, and estimated annual pension benefit at 55 with 8 years of service, will be excluded but may be considered on a qualitative basis. Other agency stipends should be included provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison. For the current analysis, such data was not sufficiently available.
-
The Board should be paid at a percentile of market compensation commensurate with County employees, provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison.
-
Board members should continue to receive the auto allowance but should not receive mileage reimbursement in addition to the auto allowance.
-
Significant Board salary adjustments should be granted in 2 or 3 increments.
Points left to be decided included:
-
On what factors should the compensation comparison be based: salary, salary plus cash benefits, or an estimate of total compensation (which may involve subjective assumptions?
-
At what percent of median/percentile should the BOS salary/compensation be placed?
-
Should any of the current cash benefits be eliminated and/or rolled into the base salary?
-
Whatever the final outcome of the analysis, should the next adjustment be phased in over time or applied all at once? And if phased in, on what schedule?
|
At the May 28 meeting, the Committee directed Steve to draft a report tentatively recommending to set the Board's compensation at the 37.5th percentile using the Schedule B analysis from the May 28 packet. Attached hereto as Attachment #5 is the draft report for the Committee's consideration. The Recommendation section of the draft report assumes the 37.5th percentile compensation recommendation but also provides optional recommendations for the Committee to consider along with the updated Schedule B analyses, which are included as Attachments #2 and #3. Attachment #6 is a draft Powerpoint presentation, also tentatively recommending to set the Board's salary at the 37.5th percentile, in preparation for the formal presentation by the Committee to the Board of Supervisors on July 7.
It has been the stated goal of the Committee that proposed actions be vetted at a minimum of two public meetings. For the meetings on Thursday, June 11 and June 18, the Committee will consider actions outlined in the Summary Report. The Committee reserves the right to modify those options based upon public testimony.
Note that the Committee has not engaged in "what if" scenarios, like what if you drop San Francisco and add San Joaquin. Such "what if" scenarios, with reasonable limits can and should be tested at the request of the Committee and the public. |