From a February Supervisors Resolution “honoring” Civil Grand Juries: “Whereas, the grand jury’s fact finding efforts result in reports that contain specific recommendations aimed at identifying problems and offering ways to improve government operations and enhance responsiveness…”
That’s true and very nice. Damned with faint praise. We couldn’t help but notice that the Board’s resolution falls very short of saying they appreciate those “specific recommendations.” Despite the multiple whereases that surround this particular statement of the obvious (which we won’t bore you with here), there are no whereases in the resolution about implementation of the Grand Jury recommendations. Not one. In fact, current and past Boards of Supervisors have not only been resistant but frequently outright hostile to the GJ’s recommendations. We can’t recall a single major Grand Jury recommendation concerning county operations that has been accepted and implemented.
Supervisors David Colfax and Kendall Smith were downright outraged in the mid-2000s that the GJ pointed out their bogus travel claims. Four Times. Supervisor McCowen and his board crew howled like injured children when the Grand Jury had the audacity to point out that having a former senior manager for Ortner on the proposal review team that picked Ortner for the adult mental health services contract was “an appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Just last fall the Grand Jury pointed out major flaws in the Human Resources Department and Family and Children’s Services and, while the Board grudgingly agreed with the Grand Jury in some respects, nothing has been done, including the GJ recommendations that the Board said they agreed with.
If the Board’s praise for the Grand Jury was accompanied by action and follow-up, we’d be more inclined to believe their empty, pro forma resolutions.
* * *
Budget Contradictions Galore in next Tuesday’s Supervisors Agenda.
For example: Item 4b) is “Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Presentation of Mid-Year Budget Report on the Status of County Departmental Spending and Revenues for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and Executive Office Recommendations.
However, as usual, there is nothing in the attached agenda materials about “Departmental Spending and Revenues” for the mid-year review. Not even a listing of departmental budgets; and certainly nothing about their current spending.
* * *
Then there’s Item 4f:
“Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of an Employment Agreement Between the County of Mendocino and Darcie Antle to Serve as Mendocino County’s Chief Executive Officer for the Term of March 12, 2024, Through July 11, 2026, with Compensation for the Period Commencing March 12, 2024, Through the First Full Pay Period Following Ms. Antle’s Performance Evaluation in June 2025, being Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($225,000) Per Year With a Total Annual Compensation of Three Hundred and Eighty-Two and Thousand Dollars ($382,000), Including Benefits. As Specified in the Employment Agreement, if Certain Conditions Are Met, Ms. Antle’s Compensation Commencing the First Full Pay Period Following the June 2025 Performance Evaluation Through the End of the Agreement Shall Be Increased to Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) Per Year With a Total Annual Compensation of Four Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($425,000), Including Benefits.”
There’s no mention of what those “certain conditions” are, but we assume they have something to do with balancing the budget. Without a listing of the “certain conditions” we’ll probably see more of the kinds of ill-considered budget cuts that lead to the unjustified, unpublicized displacement of the Veterans Service Office, since CEO Antle is probably being offered a $43,000 bonus to make unilateral budget cuts without the Board’s or the public’s prior involvement or approval.
According to the attached “Fiscal Details” for CEO Antle’s raise the “source of funding” for her raise and bonus is “the General Fund.”
And the “Current f/y cost: $200,000 current budget, approximate increase to current FY $8,500. Budget clarification: Department will work with EO Budget Team if a budget adjustment is needed. Annual recurring cost: $382,500,000 Includes cost of benefits.”
(Presumably, the “$382,500,000” is a typo. Or at least we hope it’s a typo. Mendo is not Nigeria. Yet.)
* * *
On top of Ms. Antle’s raise/bonus there’s also Item 4g:
“Whereas, effective July 7, 2024, the annual salary of the below Elected Officials is established at the following levels:
Assessor/Clerk Ranochak: $161.1k/74
Auditor/Tax Collector (Acting): Sara Pierce: $176.3k/yr
DA Eyster: $216.3k/yr.
Sheriff Kendall: $213.4k/yr
The effective date of this Resolution shall be July 7, 2024, to coincide with the beginning of Pay Period 15.24.”
In the cases of these increases the “Source of Funding” is stated as “Affiliated budget units” which also means the General Fund. The County adds: “Departments will work with fiscal for budgeting purposes,” and “Annual recurring cost is $1,070,116.”
That’s four top Mendo officials accounting for over $1 million out of the General Fund at the same time that the Board claims to be at least $7 million in the red. The Item goes on to note: “Budgeted in current fiscal year: No.”
So these raises are not in this year’s budget. Instead these department heads are directed to include their pay raises in their own departmental budgets and let the corresponding budget cuts fall where they may.
For reference, as of 2022 (per TransparentCalifornia):
Sheriff Kendall base pay was: About $183k, w/benefits: About $337k
DA Eyster base pay was: About $179k, w/benefits: About $258k.
Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector Cubbison (last recorded pay for position): Base pay was: About $123k; w/benefits: About $206k
Assessor-Clerk-Recorder Bartolomie base pay was: About $145k; W/Benefits: About $229k.
Sheriff Kendall’s base pay increase: About $30k; about a 16% increase.
DA Eyster’s base pay increase: About $38k; about a 21% increase.
Sara Pierce (as Auditor-Controller/Treasurer Tax Collector, not from her prior position as Deputy CEO) base pay increase: About $53k, about a 43% increase. (When Pierce was Deputy CEO she was making about $118k base pay. So this would be a 49% increase from Deputy CEO to her current position replacing Chamise Cubbison.
Assessor-Clerk-Recorder Bartolomie’s base pay increase: About $16k; about a 12% increase.
All these increases are being proposed in light of a supposed multi-million dollar budget deficit.
The Board’s and the CEO’s new motto should be: Us First!
* * *
AVA Readers Comment On Executive Pay Raise Proposals
[1] Every year. They do this every year just about April so they can make it effective in July. Every year, regardless of the budgetary situation. If they were REAL leaders, they would turn down these insane raises and direct the $ to be put back into their departments. But instead the costs will become layoffs of staff and higher fees to the public for services. Insanely irresponsible.
[2] Are you saying these public officials can’t possibly make it on close to $200,000 base pay (and some over that). and therefore must have a pay raise in a time of budgetary crisis? And is it really okay that the accounting covering these “expenses” is not only confusing, but suspiciously inconsistent? Wow.
[3] Sarah Kennedy Owens:
Yes, but of course they don’t see it that way. Inflation and all. Oops, that’s right, inflation affects everyone, especially those of us not on the county payroll but who pay their salaries. Just saying it sounds sooo ungenerous – even thinking about depriving those hard working people of salary and perks in the $300,000 to $500,000 a year range! And Carrie Shattuck was just reporting the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot more what I call unreasonable, extravagant and just highway robbery under there. Yikes.
[4] These proposed new BASE salaries effective July 2024:
Such a slap in the face to every resident in this county, not just the home health workers begging for $20/hour. Tami Bartolomie should be horrified to see this go before the BOS in the midst of this election mess.
We don’t even have an elected Auditor-Controller anymore although Chamise will be paid a helluva lot more than $176k (plus benefits, retirement, other pay) after she sues the county for their egregious actions against her.
DA Eyster – nothing else to be said about this bad cop-protecting egomaniac.
Shameful.
* * *
To add insult to injury we read in Supervisor Haschak’s latest Supervisors report (above) that: “When the time comes to move [the Veterans Service Office back to their Observatory Avenue home where they’d been for more than 15 years] we will be calling on them [the vets] and they will show up.”
“When the time comes”? We wonder what year Haschak has in mind?
Mazie Malone: “I walked past the old Vets House/office on Observatory Avenue which is still the Air Quality office on Wednesday with my dog, which I do often. Air Quality remains in place. All the signs and vehicles remain. Interesting to note that I have never once seen an Air Quality vehicle in the driveway at their new location. Their cars are always parked in the public health lot right next door.”
* * *
There she goes again:
Maureen Mulheren: “Is Mendocino County alone with low voter turnout? How do early Presidential primaries affect voting? So often for those that don’t research events, statistics, etc. Mendocino County seem out of the ordinary, the reality is if you take a look at the data across the State you can see that voter turnout out was incredibly low. We should all be concerned about low turnout and lack of engagement in the democratic process, most importantly when it comes to local elections and misinformation but certainly how it affects us as a society and impacts future generations.”
Ms. Mulheren again refers to unspecified “misinformation” perhaps having something to do with local elections which she conspicuously avoids mentioning, conveniently not specifying where, whom or what. Apparently, according to Mulheren, the only credible sources of information are those she approves of. Therefore, she herself is a source of misinformation.
Raises: Before Tuesday’s meeting I contacted 3 Supervisors, Mulheren, Williams and Haschak expressing my disbelief about these raises being on the Agenda. Seriously, we can’t balance our budget but are going to give raises to some of the highest paid in the County? These two agenda items were subsequently pulled/withdrawn at the beginning of the meeting. Also, take note that on the same agenda the IHSS workers are still fighting (over a year now) to get $20 per hour, which they didnt get. What a slap in the face. I’m certain these raises for the CEO/Elected will be back before the budget hearings in June. I suggest our Supervisors get some training on how to balance a budget.
The more things stay the same, the more things will never change.
If these raises come back in any form, I suggest we start a recall for any Supervisor who votes for them.
My first service as a Grand Juror had just begun when a Supervisor, encountered at a political gathering, remarked that it was too bad the Grand Juries didn’t get their facts straight. Fair warning I guess.
We issued a report pointing out that, contrary to State law, policy and procedure, the County was siphoning funds into the General Fund from the Library’s meagre coffers.
(At this time the Library’s sole finding source was its special district property allotment.) The BOS response was headlined in a bold banner headline: ” Library report “mostly untrue”.”
Fortunately, many of the same jurors served the following year. So we re-did the report. Because Grand Jury proceedings are secret all information garnered from interviews must be discarded at the term’s end; documents may be retained. We re-interviewed. This time, the BOS had to accept our facts and repaid the Library thousands of dollars. No banner headline in the UDJ this time, but the Grand Jury did receive the Robert Geiss Excellence in Reporting Award from the California Grand Juror’s Association for “special achievement in investigating and reporting.” The Award “recognizes grand jury reports that bring to the public’s attention matters of vital importance and thereby leads positive changes within their communities”. No headline in UDJ this time either.
It’s not only the County which doesn’t respond positively. Years ago, a Grand Jury noted that the City parking lot across the street from the Ukiah Library was never full, and respectfully requested that the few spots designated for Library patrons be moved close to the street. No change to date and it is such a simple improvement.