Panel Wants Longevity Pay Eliminated : Government: Citizens committee members say the 13 days of extra compensation for county officials doesn’t make sense.

Continuing their sharp attack on perks for Ventura County leaders, a citizens committee agreed Tuesday that the county should eliminate longevity pay for all elected officials.

Members of the panel said they found it “odd” that veteran elected officials receive up to 13 days of extra pay per year based on how long they can hold onto office. Instead, the panel said, the perks should be folded into the officials’ base salaries.

“Some of these benefits just don’t make sense,” panel member Robert Quist told the committee, which met for the third time Tuesday to review compensation packages of county leaders.

Panel members also criticized county Personnel Director Ron Komers for not quickly obtaining salary and benefits information from five other counties, as requested by the panel two weeks ago.

Komers said after the meeting that neither he nor his staff have had time to pull together and analyze the information for the panel, which must issue a report on its findings to the Board of Supervisors by Dec. 15.

As a result, he said, he has hired a Woodland Hills consultant for $10,000 to do the work. His decision drew complaints from panel member Lindsay Nielson and Board of Supervisors Chairman John K. Flynn.

Although Komers has the authority to spend up to $25,000 on consulting fees without approval of the supervisors, Flynn said Komers should have checked with the board before hiring the consultant.

“On a subject like this, he should have been right before us,” Flynn said. “This is getting out of hand. It doesn’t seem right to me that he should do this.”

Nielson said he was startled that Komers would spend any extra money on tasks that should be handled by county personnel. “I don’t think we need the consultant,” he said. “This is not money well-spent.”

But Komers defended his decision.

“It is not possible for us to produce the kind of data that the committee needs without using the consultant,” Komers said. “During the last budget process, our compensation unit was eliminated and the people who did that work were laid off.”

He said the firm--Skopos Consulting Group--has agreed to provide an analysis by Dec. 8 that compares benefits packages in Ventura County to those in five other counties of similar size. The other counties selected by the panel are Contra Costa, Kern, Fresno, San Joaquin and San Mateo.

Although Komers instructed the firm to study those five counties, he publicly took issue Tuesday with the panel’s choice of locales.

Speaking before the panel, he suggested that panel members consider comparing Ventura County salaries to those of other Southern California counties. “Clearly Southern California is the center of our recruitment efforts,” Komers said. “We are contiguous to Los Angeles County.

“We are an urban county. To look at board members in relation to non-urban counties is not appropriate.”

But Nielson accused Komers of trying to “guide the committee” by encouraging it to compare Ventura County to other jurisdictions that have bigger populations and budgets.

“He wants to take us where he wants to go instead of where we want to go,” Nielson said. “I’d like see the information we asked for.”

Several committee members expressed concern that they might not be able to meet their Dec. 15 deadline imposed by the supervisors. To set priorities, the group decided Tuesday to first limit its review to the pay and perks of the county’s 11 elected officials and chief administrative officer.

Panel members agreed to review the pay of 13 of the county’s top appointed officials if they have time.

For much of the meeting Tuesday, the panel members quizzed Komers on the theory behind offering longevity pay to the elected officials.

In the late 1980s, the supervisors agreed to give county managers longevity pay to keep those top officials from seeking jobs elsewhere, Komers said. In making the decision, the supervisors decided to include themselves and other elected officials to the list of about 860 key staff who would qualify for the perk.

“We discovered that people needed something to look forward to,” Komers said. “Longevity incentive was the answer to that.”

Under current policy, employees must have more than five years of service with the county to get the extra pay, Komers told the panel. So far this year, the elected officials have received a total of $52,556 in longevity pay, according to county figures.

“Tenure creates a lot of knowledge and experience,” Komers told the panel. “Longevity (pay) does recognize the increased knowledge of the long-term board members.”

But panelists suggested that a more straightforward approach was needed to compensate elected officials.

“People look at it and they just can’t understand it,” Nielson said. “It doesn’t make sense for elected officials. Maybe the salary range should be adjusted. This is just creative compensation.”

Board member Bradley Wetherell agreed: “This is the reason why we are here. This is clearly a salary benefit and should be included in base salary.”

The longevity pay is the second major perk the panel has suggested including in the elected officials’ base salaries. So far, none of the panelists have recommended reducing total take-home pay for elected officials.

Last week, the committee agreed that the county should do away with its practice of providing three weeks of vacation pay each year to the elected officials.

“We need to be able to say that the salaries and benefits are fair and reasonable in comparison to other counties,” panelist Tom Bryson said.