Here is a little local evidence that the same cluelessness that led to the AIG bonus issue is not an isolated case. Here in the Central Valley of California, our Tulare County Board of Supervisors put themselves into a lot of hot water by approving raises for themselves in a surreptitious fashion at a time when they were cutting budgets and laying off full-time county employees.
Last September 30 the Board unanimously approved the "Consent Calendar" on their agenda without discussion. According to the local Visalia Times-Delta newspaper, "The board spent less than 10 seconds on the consent agenda." Items are customarily placed on the Consent Calendar portion of an agenda when they are matters of such a routine and non-controversial nature that they are not thought worth the Board's or the public's time to discuss individually.
At the Board Meeting on September 30 the Consent Calendar contained 20 items. On one of them, "The agenda listing said simply, 'Approve changes for employees in Units 9, 10, 11,19,20, and 21.'" These changes turned out to include 4.56% raises for the Supervisors themselves, plus $500 bonuses, plus an augmentation to the Supervisors' "flex credit," in other words, their health plan.
This did not come to light until January 12, when the Times-Delta learned the increase had gone into effect on January 4. The newspaper's and the public's responses were immediate and harsh. Meanwhile, all the supervisors claimed the process was open and transparent. Board President Phil Cox said, "If any member of the public was interested in that item, they should have asked the board to pull that item off so the board could discuss it separately." Supervisor Pete Vander Poel said, "...anyone could have gone back and into the agenda where it's covered in detail." It should be noted Vander Poel was not on the Board at the time. He has replaced Connie Conway, who was elected to the State Assembly in November. Supervisor and Vice Chairman Steve Worthley said of the process, "I think its been effective." Supervisors Allen Ishida and Mike Ennis refused to comment.
Matters finally came to a head at the meeting of February 10, when thanks to public outcry the Supervisors unanimously voted to rescind their raises. Their earlier statements defending their actions were quickly forgotten in the face of public anger. I have been to other bodies where the subject of raises for a governing Board was brought up and discussed in public by the Board itself, which invited public comment. The item was not hidden away in a subclause of an innocuously titled part of the agenda.
I for one do not begrudge public servants at least making a decent living. But this case was indefensible on two grounds. First, it had every appearance of the Board trying to pull a fast one and hiding a raise for themselves in an obscure place where no one was likely to find it. An honest and astute (in tune with the constituents) politician would know an issue like this needed full transparency and would provide it without needing to be asked. Second, the timing was all wrong for a raise. Leaders cannot be giving themselves a raise when times are bad for the rank and file and regular working people in the organization are being laid off. That is heartless and an absolute failure to lead by example.
There is now a movement afoot in the community to set up a recall of the County Supervisors. We will see if it makes headway and if the public's memory is long enough that any serious challenges are mounted against the incumbents the next time they run. In the meantime we can see the importance of local investigative newspaper work and the strength of an aroused citizenry. It isn't only in Washington and New York that people are sick and tired of business as usual and are demanding change.
Postscript: Reader Arielle's comment prompted me to do a little more research. The supervisors also get a yearly car allowance of $6615. That's enough for a $551 a month car payment. It basically means a free county-provided car on top of the salary, benefits and bonus. They also spent a combined $100,000 on travel last year. Source.
2 comments:
You failed to mention their vehicle allowance. You know, the annual vehicle allowance that is more than I make in 3 months that I have to use to put myself to school, put my husband through school, feed my family and pay my rent.
Then they had the temerity to threaten to take away our 2% raise we received in December. With the raise we received personnel in my department make a whopping 16% less than all surrounding counties for the exact same job, while they are the highest paid individuals in the surrounding area for theirs. Its disgusting in every form of the word and I think the backlash they received was well warranted and overdue.
This issue also underscores the need for both average citizens and detail-oriented reporters (for those quaint institutions called newspapers) to get down in the weeds and read everything on a public board's agenda. The Brown Act really does make all these details available, but one needs to take the time to look. While I admire the Times-Delta's championing of this issue, it's also true that they missed it the first time around in six months ago. The bigger question - will voters remember this at the next election? The public's attention span to these matters seems awfully short in local elections.
Post a Comment