It was disappointing but not unexpected that the Supervisors at their July 29th meeting, with the exception of District 3 Supervisor John Haschak, refused to cut their budget by 6 percent even though they are requiring all other county departments to do so. The BOS budget would only have been reduced by $20,500, which is an insignificant amount. At minimum, the county wastes 20 grand on a daily basis.
Likewise, Haschak proposed that the annual salary of the Board of Supervisors be reduced from $110,715.00 to $103,008. Again, another trifling amount. $7,707 reduction per Supe or $38,535 for all five.
In total the BOS Budget would have been reduced by $59,035.
But again a majority of Supes (Mo Mulheren, Madeline Cline and Bernie Norvell) voted no, while Haschak and Ted Williams voted yes. Williams and Haschak’s more than accurately reflect that of most of county residents.
Haschak’s argument was given the dire straits of a deficit budget, balanced only by $6 million of one-time funds, coupled with the unknown fiscal effects of a so-called “strategic hiring freeze”, the Supes needed to get onboard and do their part sharing the pain of these tough economic times. But a majority of his colleagues refused to make even a minor sacrifice.
By the way, the CEO’s office estimates that the county is looking at a $16 million structural deficit in next year’s budget.
Go figure.
Anyway, while the Supes were discussing the proposed salary cut before they took the vote to reject the motion, District 4 Supervisor Bernie Norvell asked CEO Darcy Antle how the cuts “would be rolled out” if it was approved.
Antle said, “It would require administrative time, County Counsel time, to the change the ordinance. Also we would have to look at the Department Head Memorandum of Understanding, which you are tied to as well, for salary increases … the soonest this (paycut) would come into effect would be January of 2026. So you would be gaining just a half-year of savings.”
She told the Board that any supervisor “can reduce their wage, it just requires a smiple note to HR (Human Relations Department), and we can rescind that for any one of you without doing the ordinance change.”
Norvell then opined, “And there was a lot of opposition when this happened [a year ago when the Supes voted to bump up their pay]. And the way it is set-up now it eliminates that.”
The CEO responded, “That’s right.”
The only problem with both of their pronouncements is they were and are dead wrong.
A year ago last June when the Supes by a 3-2 vote (Haschak, Williams opposed) voted to approve their raises, I wrote the following and have repeated this explanation a number of times since then:
“The Supervisors salary raise has two main components, plus a special provision that, take my word for it as a licensed Labor-Management Relations practitioner, will prove to be extremely problematical and fraught with all sorts of legal thorniness.
“1. The first component is a two-step pay increase. Step one will occur in late September-early October [2024] when Supe pay increases to $103,008 from its current $85,500. The second step occurs in July 2025 when pay gets bumped to $110,715.
- Following the July 2025 raise, Supe salaries will be automatically determined by what us labor relations practitioners call a “Me Too” clause or agreement.
“Here’s the County’s version of its “Me Too” provision: “The Board of Supervisors compensation for services shall be increased or decreased commensurate with the terms and conditions in any future Department Head Association’s Memorandum of Understanding that are applied to all positions represented by the Department Head Association. Such applicable terms and conditions include, but are not limited to, cost of living adjustments (COLA’s), and provisions for compensation changes based on compensation surveys conducted on all positions, as identified in any future Department Head Association’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).”
“Of course, the Supes still will be determining their compensation since they have to approve the Department Head Association’s MOU on compensation. So that’s how this ‘Me Too’ agreement works. It’s an indirect method for compensation benefits to flow to the Supes without appearing on the surface that they have control over all compensation-related matters.”
Later in the meeting, County Counsel Charlotte Scott, confirmed my explanation of the “Me Too Agreement” requiring Board of Supervisors’ approval for any salary increases for the County’s highest paid employees, the Department Heads.
So, as I correctly interpreted the Me Too Agreement, if the Supes approve pay increases for their department heads, they are still deciding their very own salary increases, notwithstanding that the facts don’t cooperate with Norvell and Antle.
Following the Board majority rejecting Haschak’s proposed salary reduction, a miffed District 2 Supervisor Mo Mulheren had the following exchange with Haschak, revealing her state of upset over the entire subject of pay cuts for the Board. I want to thank Mark Scaramella for transcribing their dialog.
“After the vote Supervisor Mulheren had this testy exchange with Supervisor Haschak:
“Mulheren: We have many conversations up here on the dais and some of them are, um, agenda items and some of them we talk about them when we talk about the budget. I just think that in consideration of the processes and in consideration of staff time and consideration of, um, the way that the, uh, county moves forward as an agency, I would personally appreciate it if we would not have agenda items come forward multiple times after they were already not approved.
“Haschak: How many times have you seen this agenda item on an agenda?
“Mulheren: I’m not asking to have a conversation or a debate about it. We have…
“Haschak: But your comments were…
“Mulheren: We have had conversations…
“Haschak: How many times have you seen this as an agenda item?
“Mulheren: This is the first time that this has been an agenda item, Supervisor. But it is not the first time that the discussion has been had by this Board this year.
“Haschak: I understand. But it’s the first time it’s come as an agenda item. OK? (Stares at his computer)
“Supervisor Cline: I just want to pause for a second and ask that this board make a conscious effort not to interrupt speakers in the middle of comments. I have seen that happen multiple times by different individuals and I just ask for some decorum.”
Evidently Cline has taken on the role of “decorum monitor” for the Board. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with supervisors vigorously arguing their respective positions on matters before them, even if there’s a bit of “interrupting” occurring.
My advice on the decorum subject is drop it as we all know there are so many other more important things the Supervisors should be paying attention to.
(Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, [email protected], the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org)
“We don’t need no stinkin’ salary cuts”
Decorum??? Lol lol lol lol lol. Decorum. Speak not of our failures and woes. Make it look shiny , everything glows!!! Look at our magnifucent selves we do so much doesnt it show? A busted budget, pothole filled roads, a certain blind ignorance is all that they know. 1100 plus staff most managers and supervisors. Do little more than shove papers around. The county is suffering because too much defensive conversations of how to prevent litigation and liability are the focus. Leagal council fees due to the neverending litigation tolls is insanity. If all they worry about is preventing liability and litigation, what is the liability of continuing to do VIRTUALLY NOTHING???