County Salary Reform: Better Late Than Never : Why have L.A. supervisors been so slow to rein in system?

Why has it taken so long for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to rein in a controversial pay- for- performance system that has been, and will continue for years to be, a big drain on the financially troubled county’s resources? The supervisors acted quietly last week to officially scrap the performance-based pay system as of next July 1. No pay hikes under the system have been given to top county officials since 1992, but the needlessly slow efforts at reform have cost the county plenty.

More needs to be done--and faster. Gloria Molina, the first supervisor to aggressively take on this problem, has had to settle for gradual changes to gain support on the board. It has taken 2 1/2 years to come up with an alternative to performance-based pay, which was under the sole discretion of the county administrative officer. Raises under the plan approved last week will require approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Troubles in the county salary structure began in the late 1980s. The performance-based system was put in place by then-County Administrative Officer Richard Dixon, who was forced to resign in 1992 after spending $6 million to remodel his office. Under the plan, top county officials-- 1,400 people-- were removed from the Civil Service roll and its standardized pay schedule. At a time when the economy was faltering, they were being given annual raises of up to 11%, cash bonuses that weren’t considered part of their salaries and lucrative packages of fringe benefits. They had the option of taking a so-called cafeteria-style benefit package valued at up to 19% of their base salary or going for the equivalent in cash. The value of the benefits, though not a salary item, was included in calculating retirement benefits. This “pension spiking” scheme was widely criticized. Gov. Pete Wilson called it an abuse and signed legislation to prevent other counties from adopting such a plan.

In part, L.A. County pay practices were reformed in 1993. Top officials hired since then cannot include the benefits sum in retirement calculations. However, those who had been receiving benefits still do so.

Base pay has rocketed in recent years. A Times examination showed that 1,225 county employees now make more than $100,000 a year.

Although there are legal uncertainties about adjusting the benefit package, might not it be time to deeply scrutinize its overly generous percentages? The private sector is cutting back on benefits to save money. Why doesn’t the county consider a similar move?

Salary structure has been a significant source of fiscal distress for other counties as well. As Orange County was mired in the worst municipal bankruptcy ever, top officials--and some not so high--still were pulling in six-figure salaries.

The L.A. supervisors, whose credibility in Sacramento suffers because of the salary shenanigans, cannot escape confronting the relationship between the pay structure and the drain on county resources. And it doesn’t help when board Chairman Mike Antonovich passes off the problem in a written statement noting,”Most county managers are paid less than what they would be paid in the private sector.” It is also worth noting that when it comes to rewarding employees, private companies often can afford to be freer than a public agency that is dependent on tax revenues.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Rocketing Salaries

County job, salary and percentage increase since 1989.

Sheriff, $212,259 (68%)

Assessor, $167025 (75%)

Counsel, $151, 653 (35%)