Op-Ed: A Former CFO Runs the Numbers - and Makes the Case Against Supes' Raise

The Board of Supervisors' vote on their big pay raise is over, but the political fallout most likely is not, as this argument from a longtime SB financial executive suggests

(Editor’s note: After a political tempest, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-1-1 on Tuesday to increase their salaries from $115,000 to $171,000. Today, longtime local opinion columnist and retired fiscal administrator Randy Alcorn points to some underlying issues about the raise that may fuel continued political controversy).

By Randy Alcorn

In defending a 48.6% increase in her salary and that of her fellow Santa Barbara County supervisors, Laura Capps contends that there is “a great deal of intentional disinformation” and lack of “accurate context” regarding the $56,000 annual increase.

Well, maybe, but there is also some (intentional?) missing information and overlooked context.

For instance, the total compensation of a county supervisor is far more than just the salary. It includes health insurance, life insurance, and a defined benefit pension plan covering the retired supervisor and spouse for life. There are also paid allowances, including a car allowance. The cost to the taxpayers of these benefits is reportedly about $160,000 per year per individual.

The more public officials are paid, the greater their pensions. The county is already burdened with a burgeoning $817 million unfunded pension liability for its staff and officials. To avoid default, tax revenues must be increased or public services reduced.

So, get used to more pot holes and higher taxes.

Concerning accurate context, consider that the median household annual income in Santa Barbara County is a bit over $98,000, while individual supervisor pay has been raised from $115,000 to $171,000 — plus those singularly generous benefits.

How do the vast majority of county residents manage to get by on so much less than that?

Why are county Supervisors, and much of county staff for that matter, paid so much more than most of the public whom they serve and who are taxed to pay them? Is government work really so much more valuable to society than other work?

Capps justifies the supervisors giving themselves a huge pay increase by listing the scope of responsibility of county supervisors in representing nearly 100,000 residents in each of their districts. Actually, each supervisor represents about 88,200 county residents. By comparison Congressman Salud Carbajal is paid $174,000 per year to represent 760,000 residents in his 24 th district – almost nine times as many residents for nearly the same pay.

Why not cite this comparison rather than comparing the pay of other counties’ supervisors?

Capps notes that supervisors are paid almost 28 per cent less than the county’s chiefs of staff. This may be more an indication that staff pay is unnecessarily high than that supervisors’ pay is too low.

The greatest fiscal reality of government budgets, and the greatest opportunity to balance them without imposing more taxes on the public, is that, by and large, government employees are relatively highly compensated—maybe more than is necessary.

The peroration of Capps’ argument is that supervisors in certain other comparable counties are paid much more. This comparison argument, in which officials in one jurisdiction justify increasing their compensation in order to keep pace with other jurisdictions, is a tiresome tactic and a sophistry.

It assumes that an official is underpaid because officials in some other jurisdictions are paid more. It never assumes that those other officials are overpaid. It also implies that people will not run for public office or will leave if not compensated as much or more as those officials in other jurisdictions.

Is compensation the major motivation of people seeking the office of county supervisor? All candidates know what the pay is when they choose to run. If they require more income, then they should seek a different line of work.

Did any of the supervisors publicly propose a 48 per cent salary increase for themselves when they were running for office? Shouldn’t they have made their case to the voters first and let the voters decide?

Fiscally irresponsible governments eventually become fully staffed with over-compensated employees and consequentially face budget deficits. More frugal and steadfast governments incur fewer or no budget shortfalls.

It takes courageous, selfless, local elected officials and a determined public to endthe cycle of spiraling public employee compensation. The alternative is continually escalating taxes and eroded essential services, or bankruptcy, as has already occurred in several California jurisdictions.

Randy Alcorn, a Santa Barbara resident for more than 50 years, was the longtime Chief Financial Officer for the News-Press, first appointed when the paper was owned by the New York Times. He has written commentary and analysis about local public affairs since 2000.