Home
News
ENLARGE
Wonders never cease in government around here.
This week, the county Board of Supervisors punted on a decision to grant itself a pay raise and sent the matter to a civil grand jury for "analysis." You know, the same overworked, underpaid grand jury that already is busy with some pretty serious civil matters.
The procedure, allowed under state law, is unusual but not unheard of. In the end, the board has to approve any raise.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, and to me, this looked more like a way for the supervisors to justify a pay raise without sticking out their political necks. It smacks of CYA.
I grow more skeptical when I hear comments like this: "Whatever we do, we'll get shot at ... but this is a full-time job. A neutral or independent party needs to review this."
This is a "full-time job": Sounds like the group, most of whom are retired or who hold day jobs, is laying the groundwork for a raise from the nearly $40,000 they get plus health benefits and other perks. Their last raise was a year and a half ago.
"A neutral party needs to review this." Translation: The economy is in the dumps and some board seats are up for grabs next year, so why not point to a grand jury finding to deflect any criticism when we OK the deal?
This week, the county Board of Supervisors punted on a decision to grant itself a pay raise and sent the matter to a civil grand jury for "analysis." You know, the same overworked, underpaid grand jury that already is busy with some pretty serious civil matters.
The procedure, allowed under state law, is unusual but not unheard of. In the end, the board has to approve any raise.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, and to me, this looked more like a way for the supervisors to justify a pay raise without sticking out their political necks. It smacks of CYA.
I grow more skeptical when I hear comments like this: "Whatever we do, we'll get shot at ... but this is a full-time job. A neutral or independent party needs to review this."
This is a "full-time job": Sounds like the group, most of whom are retired or who hold day jobs, is laying the groundwork for a raise from the nearly $40,000 they get plus health benefits and other perks. Their last raise was a year and a half ago.
"A neutral party needs to review this." Translation: The economy is in the dumps and some board seats are up for grabs next year, so why not point to a grand jury finding to deflect any criticism when we OK the deal?
One problem though: Although a county civil grand jury is supposedly neutral, its members are not compensation experts and do not pretend to be.
What are they going to say? They probably don't have the time or expertise to challenge the flawed assumption (at least I think so) that just averaging the public sector pay rates in some nearby counties - no how much bigger or smaller - somehow justifies a pay raise. Public-sector managers have used this rationale for years. Each county is unique.
The grand jury probably doesn't have time to compare private and public sector wages in the same county or to take into account the generous public-sector benefits that most private companies here could never afford. (I'm not even sure taxpayers can afford them in our rocky economic times; we'll keep our fingers crossed.)
The jury also doesn't have the resources or expertise to study whether the raises are sustainable in future years or whether there is an adequate pay-for-performance structure in place, as in private industry.
Instead, they'll rely on the county administration's human resources department and the same-old metrics and "analysis." (Is the fox guarding the henhouse?)
One issue I hope they'll find objectionable, as have other grand juries, is whether there is enough detailed public debate on big, proposed pay increases when the real world is experiencing an economic slump.
Most of the time, big raises, such as the double-digit ones that were just granted to Grass Valley interim city administrator Jeff Foltz or county executive officer Rick Haffey are put on a "consent agenda," meaning that public discussion is not automatic. How Rood!
You have to count on a newspaper or a community watchdog to root out this information from the agenda and highlight it. The practice is legal, but it is not transparent enough.
What are they going to say? They probably don't have the time or expertise to challenge the flawed assumption (at least I think so) that just averaging the public sector pay rates in some nearby counties - no how much bigger or smaller - somehow justifies a pay raise. Public-sector managers have used this rationale for years. Each county is unique.
The grand jury probably doesn't have time to compare private and public sector wages in the same county or to take into account the generous public-sector benefits that most private companies here could never afford. (I'm not even sure taxpayers can afford them in our rocky economic times; we'll keep our fingers crossed.)
The jury also doesn't have the resources or expertise to study whether the raises are sustainable in future years or whether there is an adequate pay-for-performance structure in place, as in private industry.
Instead, they'll rely on the county administration's human resources department and the same-old metrics and "analysis." (Is the fox guarding the henhouse?)
One issue I hope they'll find objectionable, as have other grand juries, is whether there is enough detailed public debate on big, proposed pay increases when the real world is experiencing an economic slump.
Most of the time, big raises, such as the double-digit ones that were just granted to Grass Valley interim city administrator Jeff Foltz or county executive officer Rick Haffey are put on a "consent agenda," meaning that public discussion is not automatic. How Rood!
You have to count on a newspaper or a community watchdog to root out this information from the agenda and highlight it. The practice is legal, but it is not transparent enough.
In the private sector, a proxy statement is sent to shareholders with salary information outlined under strict SEC regulations. Let's at least encourage more robust public debate on raises such as Haffey's and Foltz's.
The good news is that despite some stereotyping in our neck of the woods, our residents did not fall off the turnip truck. They can read between the lines.
As one of our readers characterized the decision: "This must be supervisor speak for we are not going to ask for a pay cut or maintain the status quo."
Government punting
The supervisors' decision on their own pay raises and other fiscal matters will no doubt become an election issue - the group has approved a string of pay increases despite hard economic times. This is a like-minded, conservative board that promised fiscal conservatism.
The board already has been criticized as another group of "big government" Republicans, a widespread problem throughout the party. (Read Ryan Sager's "The Elephant in the Room.") The board denies this: It sees the Rood Center as a tightly run ship.
The good news is that despite some stereotyping in our neck of the woods, our residents did not fall off the turnip truck. They can read between the lines.
As one of our readers characterized the decision: "This must be supervisor speak for we are not going to ask for a pay cut or maintain the status quo."
Government punting
The supervisors' decision on their own pay raises and other fiscal matters will no doubt become an election issue - the group has approved a string of pay increases despite hard economic times. This is a like-minded, conservative board that promised fiscal conservatism.
The board already has been criticized as another group of "big government" Republicans, a widespread problem throughout the party. (Read Ryan Sager's "The Elephant in the Room.") The board denies this: It sees the Rood Center as a tightly run ship.
Most important, the board's decision to punt on the pay raises, pending a grand jury analysis, will rekindle concerns about their lack of leadership or clear vision for our community, even though they're largely on the same page. To many people, this is more worrisome than just voting themselves another pay raise from the get-go.
Punting is more rampant in government than football: We elect politicians to make decisions - and they pass the buck.
More than 2,230 state-level initiatives have been on the ballot since the first one went before the voters in Oregon in 1904, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC. The modern initiative movement began in the late '70s with California's Proposition 13.
To be sure, each Nevada County supervisor has made important contributions to our community: Nate Beason for Cascade Shores sewage treatment, Hank Weston for fire protection and Sue Horne for "Friends of Nevada County Military," for example.
But concerns about the board's leadership, independence from the county administration and fiscal frugality are making the rounds, as well as being voiced to other political leaders who represent us.
I hope the supes can sort it out. In the meantime, I feel sorry for the grand jury, whose members are the ham in a political sandwich.
ooo
Jeff Pelline is the editor of The Union. His column appears on Saturdays. Contact him at 477-4235, jeffp@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.
Punting is more rampant in government than football: We elect politicians to make decisions - and they pass the buck.
More than 2,230 state-level initiatives have been on the ballot since the first one went before the voters in Oregon in 1904, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC. The modern initiative movement began in the late '70s with California's Proposition 13.
To be sure, each Nevada County supervisor has made important contributions to our community: Nate Beason for Cascade Shores sewage treatment, Hank Weston for fire protection and Sue Horne for "Friends of Nevada County Military," for example.
But concerns about the board's leadership, independence from the county administration and fiscal frugality are making the rounds, as well as being voiced to other political leaders who represent us.
I hope the supes can sort it out. In the meantime, I feel sorry for the grand jury, whose members are the ham in a political sandwich.
ooo
Jeff Pelline is the editor of The Union. His column appears on Saturdays. Contact him at 477-4235, jeffp@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.
Sound public policy or bloopers?
Here are some other government practices worth thinking about:• Some public servants here are raking in close to $200,000 annually, thanks to “double dipping,” which lets you collect a government retirement check and paycheck at the same time. Another high six-figure example surfaced last week.
“I am encouraging my children to look for careers in city administration instead of medicine or engineering at this point,” one reader said.
In government, one hand does not always know, or care, what the other is doing.
• A judge is disqualified from a high-profile murder case after a ruling that he may not
be impartial because of personal ties to the victim’s family. This is the same judge who changed the venue of the trial because of “incendiary” media reports. What were the details of the case? A man shot his wife in the head with, well, a nail gun. Sounds like some incendiary facts.
The jury took less than eight hours to reach a guilty verdict, and the change of venue cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars. Another judge passed on the chance to bring the case back here. The case will be appealed.
• The county forks out $10,000 to an alleged victim of sexual misconduct by a part-time sheriff’s deputy in a Tonopah, Nev., motel room, supposedly to avert litigation. But the part-time deputy was never even arrested for the alleged incident, much less convicted. Sounds like a case of premature payout at best.
— Jeff Pelline
