While there is no perfect way to insulate the body from unseemly decisions, I have never really been bothered personally by the prospect of a pay raise. The main reason for that is that legislative bodies are generally paid sufficiently less than comparable private sector jobs. Moreover, the air of public scrutiny is usually sufficient to prevent unseemly money grabs by the officials.
The big controversy surrounding the County Supervisors right now is that they voted to change the formula by which their salaries are calculated. Previously they tied their salary to one-third of what a Superior Court judge earns. The supervisors decided to increase that to 40 percent.
The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. Given that this is a full-time job that pay does not represent a very large salary. The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515. That’s not exactly a rich person’s salary either. But that certainly is more livable than the current pay for County Supervisors.
Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000. To live in Yolo County, you’d have to have a second salary to augment the below median salary you are getting for being a County Supervisor.
Given that this is a beyond full-time job it seems rather obvious that unless you are independently wealthy or have a spouse pulling down a strong second income, a lot of people are not going to be able to afford to be a county supervisor. It is the same problem that we mentioned with the compensation for being a Davis City Council member–$500 per month. While it seems like a good idea to have small pay for public servants, the reality is that that severely restricts who can afford to serve.
A Superior Court Judge in comparison will make $175,000 by July 1, 2007. The increase of 33 percent to 40 percent means a pay raise from $63,000 to $70,000 or a forty percent pay raise over the current salary. That still does not allow Yolo County Supervisors to catch up to their neighbors, but it does close the gap. And it certainly makes the pay more competitive with private sector jobs that they have to give up to serve the public.
This seems like a necessary change if we are to attract good people who are not all independently wealthy.
For that reason, I see no reason for statements like the one made by Matt Rexroad who is refusing to take an pay increase, that he did not even vote on.
“When I was elected as a Supervisor on November 8th the pay was set at a certain amount. That is the amount I will make during my entire four years as a Supervisor.
Tomorrow the agenda has a pay raise item for Supervisors. It would take the base pay of 33% of a judge to 40% of a judge. It may pass but I will not accept it. I also will not accept the travel allowance.”
We understand that Rexroad probably doesn’t need his Supervisor’s salary to survive, however, we believe in a system where you don’t have to be as well off as Rexroad to serve our county. Paying an additional $7,000 per year doesn’t seem like a big trade off to us for properly compensating our elected official for their strong work and commitment to our governance.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Even with their upcoming raise, Superior Court judges take a “major hit” in income when they decide to become judges. Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.
Even with their upcoming raise, Superior Court judges take a “major hit” in income when they decide to become judges. Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.
Even with their upcoming raise, Superior Court judges take a “major hit” in income when they decide to become judges. Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.
Even with their upcoming raise, Superior Court judges take a “major hit” in income when they decide to become judges. Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.
“Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.”
And I certainly would not want to suggest otherwise. There is a difference though between taking a “pay cut” to $170,000 and taking a “pay cut” to $49,000.
“Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.”
And I certainly would not want to suggest otherwise. There is a difference though between taking a “pay cut” to $170,000 and taking a “pay cut” to $49,000.
“Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.”
And I certainly would not want to suggest otherwise. There is a difference though between taking a “pay cut” to $170,000 and taking a “pay cut” to $49,000.
“Most that I have gotten to know do this without difficulty because they want to be of service to their community and “make a difference”.”
And I certainly would not want to suggest otherwise. There is a difference though between taking a “pay cut” to $170,000 and taking a “pay cut” to $49,000.
We are on the same page here, Doug..
We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters. Let’s hope that they are turned off by his antics soon rather than later.
We are on the same page here, Doug..
We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters. Let’s hope that they are turned off by his antics soon rather than later.
We are on the same page here, Doug..
We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters. Let’s hope that they are turned off by his antics soon rather than later.
We are on the same page here, Doug..
We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters. Let’s hope that they are turned off by his antics soon rather than later.
Rexroad responds:
Rexroad Blog
Rexroad responds:
Rexroad Blog
Rexroad responds:
Rexroad Blog
Rexroad responds:
Rexroad Blog
“The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. … The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515.”
Yolo County’s supervisorial pay ought not be compared with the average in California but rather with the average among counties whose population is similar to ours, adjusting up or down based on the median household income in each county.
It makes no sense to compare the salaries of Yolo’s supes with those in Los Angeles County (2005 est. population 9,935,475) or in Alpine County (pop. 1,159).
“Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000.”
Those counties are not good comps, either. Sacramento County has 1,363,482 people (2005 est.) and Solano has 411,593. Yolo County, by comparison, has just 184,932.
A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.
“A Superior Court Judge in comparison will make $175,000 by July 1, 2007. The increase of 33 percent to 40 percent means a pay raise from $63,000 to $70,000 or a forty percent pay raise over the current salary.”
I am not opposed to paying fair salaries to elected officials. Not only does it help attract better people to those jobs, but it reduces the incentives for corruption. That said, a 40 percent pay raise is terribly excessive. It would be fairer, in my opinion, to gradually increase the pay up to the proper level, if it truly is too low, now.
Also, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to tie the supervisors’ salaries to what a superior court judge is paid. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to tie their salaries to the median household income, which for Yolo County is now $43,491 per year.
It seems to me that the supervisors ought to be paid about $60,000 per year. If that number were agreed on, then the formula would be Median Househould Income times 140 percent.
“The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. … The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515.”
Yolo County’s supervisorial pay ought not be compared with the average in California but rather with the average among counties whose population is similar to ours, adjusting up or down based on the median household income in each county.
It makes no sense to compare the salaries of Yolo’s supes with those in Los Angeles County (2005 est. population 9,935,475) or in Alpine County (pop. 1,159).
“Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000.”
Those counties are not good comps, either. Sacramento County has 1,363,482 people (2005 est.) and Solano has 411,593. Yolo County, by comparison, has just 184,932.
A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.
“A Superior Court Judge in comparison will make $175,000 by July 1, 2007. The increase of 33 percent to 40 percent means a pay raise from $63,000 to $70,000 or a forty percent pay raise over the current salary.”
I am not opposed to paying fair salaries to elected officials. Not only does it help attract better people to those jobs, but it reduces the incentives for corruption. That said, a 40 percent pay raise is terribly excessive. It would be fairer, in my opinion, to gradually increase the pay up to the proper level, if it truly is too low, now.
Also, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to tie the supervisors’ salaries to what a superior court judge is paid. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to tie their salaries to the median household income, which for Yolo County is now $43,491 per year.
It seems to me that the supervisors ought to be paid about $60,000 per year. If that number were agreed on, then the formula would be Median Househould Income times 140 percent.
“The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. … The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515.”
Yolo County’s supervisorial pay ought not be compared with the average in California but rather with the average among counties whose population is similar to ours, adjusting up or down based on the median household income in each county.
It makes no sense to compare the salaries of Yolo’s supes with those in Los Angeles County (2005 est. population 9,935,475) or in Alpine County (pop. 1,159).
“Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000.”
Those counties are not good comps, either. Sacramento County has 1,363,482 people (2005 est.) and Solano has 411,593. Yolo County, by comparison, has just 184,932.
A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.
“A Superior Court Judge in comparison will make $175,000 by July 1, 2007. The increase of 33 percent to 40 percent means a pay raise from $63,000 to $70,000 or a forty percent pay raise over the current salary.”
I am not opposed to paying fair salaries to elected officials. Not only does it help attract better people to those jobs, but it reduces the incentives for corruption. That said, a 40 percent pay raise is terribly excessive. It would be fairer, in my opinion, to gradually increase the pay up to the proper level, if it truly is too low, now.
Also, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to tie the supervisors’ salaries to what a superior court judge is paid. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to tie their salaries to the median household income, which for Yolo County is now $43,491 per year.
It seems to me that the supervisors ought to be paid about $60,000 per year. If that number were agreed on, then the formula would be Median Househould Income times 140 percent.
“The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. … The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515.”
Yolo County’s supervisorial pay ought not be compared with the average in California but rather with the average among counties whose population is similar to ours, adjusting up or down based on the median household income in each county.
It makes no sense to compare the salaries of Yolo’s supes with those in Los Angeles County (2005 est. population 9,935,475) or in Alpine County (pop. 1,159).
“Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000.”
Those counties are not good comps, either. Sacramento County has 1,363,482 people (2005 est.) and Solano has 411,593. Yolo County, by comparison, has just 184,932.
A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.
“A Superior Court Judge in comparison will make $175,000 by July 1, 2007. The increase of 33 percent to 40 percent means a pay raise from $63,000 to $70,000 or a forty percent pay raise over the current salary.”
I am not opposed to paying fair salaries to elected officials. Not only does it help attract better people to those jobs, but it reduces the incentives for corruption. That said, a 40 percent pay raise is terribly excessive. It would be fairer, in my opinion, to gradually increase the pay up to the proper level, if it truly is too low, now.
Also, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to tie the supervisors’ salaries to what a superior court judge is paid. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to tie their salaries to the median household income, which for Yolo County is now $43,491 per year.
It seems to me that the supervisors ought to be paid about $60,000 per year. If that number were agreed on, then the formula would be Median Househould Income times 140 percent.
“A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.”
Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.
Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.
Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you though that it could have been phased in over time.
“A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.”
Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.
Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.
Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you though that it could have been phased in over time.
“A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.”
Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.
Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.
Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you though that it could have been phased in over time.
“A better comp for Yolo County would be Shasta County (179,904 population). The median household income is pretty close in Shasta and Yolo, and the populations are roughly equal in numbers.”
Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.
Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.
Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you though that it could have been phased in over time.
Doug,
We have some different numbers. Mine come from the latest US Census data, online. The household income figures are 2003; the population figures are 2005 estimates:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
“Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.”
Shasta median income = $36,418
Yolo median income = $43,491
Shasta = .84 x Yolo
That’s pretty close.
The highest household income county in California is Santa Clara at $68,167. The lowest is Trinity at $28,984. (My guess, however, is that Trinity’s is at least double that number. There is a huge blackmarket economy in Trinity County.)
“Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.”
Sacramento, per the census, is $46,296 per househould; Solano is $56,545.
The California average is $48,440.
A bit of trivia is that San Benito’s total population (55,939) is almost exactly the same as its median household income ($56,319).
“Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.”
Cost of living should be a factor, but only within the context of total population served. A big question is not just the cost of living, but the ability of the taxpayers to afford those salaries, and that ability is based on the income of the taxpayers.
If you simply use cost of living, you ignore the quantity of your taxbase. The average cost of living in Los Angeles County is not dissimilar to the cost of living in Yolo County. (Median income is actually higher in Yolo County.) But L.A. County has 53.7 times as many people, and probably hundreds times as many businesses. As such, L.A. County has a much larger tax base to draw from.
What I don’t want to have happen, as Matt Rexroad rightly points out in his response, is to have to cut county services in order to pay the salaries and other costs of the supervisors.
Keep in mind that the size of the pie in Yolo County is fixed on a year to year basis. So every extra dollar you give to the supervisors is a dollar you are not giving to a nurse’s aide or to the animal shelter or to the budget to buy books for the library.
To repeat what I said above, I’m in favor of paying the supervisors a decent wage. I think $60,000 is quite fair. It’s about 40% more than the median household income in our county, keeping in mind that many households in Yolo County have more than one person working. So to my mind, going beyond $60,000 (in inflation adjusted dollars) seems excessive to me.
I would favor an annual increase of $3,000 per year each year for the next 4 years. That would make their salaries $61,730 in 2010; and from that point forward, they could be indexed to median household income in Yolo County.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters.”
Davisite, must you always defame someone in each of your posts to this blog? Have you no decency?
I am quite certain that Rexroad is not the wealthiest or supervisor in Yolo County. Not by a longshot.
Doug,
We have some different numbers. Mine come from the latest US Census data, online. The household income figures are 2003; the population figures are 2005 estimates:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
“Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.”
Shasta median income = $36,418
Yolo median income = $43,491
Shasta = .84 x Yolo
That’s pretty close.
The highest household income county in California is Santa Clara at $68,167. The lowest is Trinity at $28,984. (My guess, however, is that Trinity’s is at least double that number. There is a huge blackmarket economy in Trinity County.)
“Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.”
Sacramento, per the census, is $46,296 per househould; Solano is $56,545.
The California average is $48,440.
A bit of trivia is that San Benito’s total population (55,939) is almost exactly the same as its median household income ($56,319).
“Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.”
Cost of living should be a factor, but only within the context of total population served. A big question is not just the cost of living, but the ability of the taxpayers to afford those salaries, and that ability is based on the income of the taxpayers.
If you simply use cost of living, you ignore the quantity of your taxbase. The average cost of living in Los Angeles County is not dissimilar to the cost of living in Yolo County. (Median income is actually higher in Yolo County.) But L.A. County has 53.7 times as many people, and probably hundreds times as many businesses. As such, L.A. County has a much larger tax base to draw from.
What I don’t want to have happen, as Matt Rexroad rightly points out in his response, is to have to cut county services in order to pay the salaries and other costs of the supervisors.
Keep in mind that the size of the pie in Yolo County is fixed on a year to year basis. So every extra dollar you give to the supervisors is a dollar you are not giving to a nurse’s aide or to the animal shelter or to the budget to buy books for the library.
To repeat what I said above, I’m in favor of paying the supervisors a decent wage. I think $60,000 is quite fair. It’s about 40% more than the median household income in our county, keeping in mind that many households in Yolo County have more than one person working. So to my mind, going beyond $60,000 (in inflation adjusted dollars) seems excessive to me.
I would favor an annual increase of $3,000 per year each year for the next 4 years. That would make their salaries $61,730 in 2010; and from that point forward, they could be indexed to median household income in Yolo County.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters.”
Davisite, must you always defame someone in each of your posts to this blog? Have you no decency?
I am quite certain that Rexroad is not the wealthiest or supervisor in Yolo County. Not by a longshot.
Doug,
We have some different numbers. Mine come from the latest US Census data, online. The household income figures are 2003; the population figures are 2005 estimates:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
“Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.”
Shasta median income = $36,418
Yolo median income = $43,491
Shasta = .84 x Yolo
That’s pretty close.
The highest household income county in California is Santa Clara at $68,167. The lowest is Trinity at $28,984. (My guess, however, is that Trinity’s is at least double that number. There is a huge blackmarket economy in Trinity County.)
“Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.”
Sacramento, per the census, is $46,296 per househould; Solano is $56,545.
The California average is $48,440.
A bit of trivia is that San Benito’s total population (55,939) is almost exactly the same as its median household income ($56,319).
“Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.”
Cost of living should be a factor, but only within the context of total population served. A big question is not just the cost of living, but the ability of the taxpayers to afford those salaries, and that ability is based on the income of the taxpayers.
If you simply use cost of living, you ignore the quantity of your taxbase. The average cost of living in Los Angeles County is not dissimilar to the cost of living in Yolo County. (Median income is actually higher in Yolo County.) But L.A. County has 53.7 times as many people, and probably hundreds times as many businesses. As such, L.A. County has a much larger tax base to draw from.
What I don’t want to have happen, as Matt Rexroad rightly points out in his response, is to have to cut county services in order to pay the salaries and other costs of the supervisors.
Keep in mind that the size of the pie in Yolo County is fixed on a year to year basis. So every extra dollar you give to the supervisors is a dollar you are not giving to a nurse’s aide or to the animal shelter or to the budget to buy books for the library.
To repeat what I said above, I’m in favor of paying the supervisors a decent wage. I think $60,000 is quite fair. It’s about 40% more than the median household income in our county, keeping in mind that many households in Yolo County have more than one person working. So to my mind, going beyond $60,000 (in inflation adjusted dollars) seems excessive to me.
I would favor an annual increase of $3,000 per year each year for the next 4 years. That would make their salaries $61,730 in 2010; and from that point forward, they could be indexed to median household income in Yolo County.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters.”
Davisite, must you always defame someone in each of your posts to this blog? Have you no decency?
I am quite certain that Rexroad is not the wealthiest or supervisor in Yolo County. Not by a longshot.
Doug,
We have some different numbers. Mine come from the latest US Census data, online. The household income figures are 2003; the population figures are 2005 estimates:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
“Median in Shata County is 34,000 versus 40,000 for Yolo County that’s about 15% less.”
Shasta median income = $36,418
Yolo median income = $43,491
Shasta = .84 x Yolo
That’s pretty close.
The highest household income county in California is Santa Clara at $68,167. The lowest is Trinity at $28,984. (My guess, however, is that Trinity’s is at least double that number. There is a huge blackmarket economy in Trinity County.)
“Median Income in Sacramento County is 43,000 and in Solano County is 54,000.”
Sacramento, per the census, is $46,296 per househould; Solano is $56,545.
The California average is $48,440.
A bit of trivia is that San Benito’s total population (55,939) is almost exactly the same as its median household income ($56,319).
“Personally I think the salary should be paid based on cost of living rather than number of people represented.”
Cost of living should be a factor, but only within the context of total population served. A big question is not just the cost of living, but the ability of the taxpayers to afford those salaries, and that ability is based on the income of the taxpayers.
If you simply use cost of living, you ignore the quantity of your taxbase. The average cost of living in Los Angeles County is not dissimilar to the cost of living in Yolo County. (Median income is actually higher in Yolo County.) But L.A. County has 53.7 times as many people, and probably hundreds times as many businesses. As such, L.A. County has a much larger tax base to draw from.
What I don’t want to have happen, as Matt Rexroad rightly points out in his response, is to have to cut county services in order to pay the salaries and other costs of the supervisors.
Keep in mind that the size of the pie in Yolo County is fixed on a year to year basis. So every extra dollar you give to the supervisors is a dollar you are not giving to a nurse’s aide or to the animal shelter or to the budget to buy books for the library.
To repeat what I said above, I’m in favor of paying the supervisors a decent wage. I think $60,000 is quite fair. It’s about 40% more than the median household income in our county, keeping in mind that many households in Yolo County have more than one person working. So to my mind, going beyond $60,000 (in inflation adjusted dollars) seems excessive to me.
I would favor an annual increase of $3,000 per year each year for the next 4 years. That would make their salaries $61,730 in 2010; and from that point forward, they could be indexed to median household income in Yolo County.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office. Rexroad’s political posturing about foregoing his raise insults the intelligence of his voters.”
Davisite, must you always defame someone in each of your posts to this blog? Have you no decency?
I am quite certain that Rexroad is not the wealthiest or supervisor in Yolo County. Not by a longshot.
Conservative Democratic voters and Independents finally saw through the empty gestures, hypocritical populist rhetoric and political demagoguery of the Republicans in this last midterm election. Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.
Conservative Democratic voters and Independents finally saw through the empty gestures, hypocritical populist rhetoric and political demagoguery of the Republicans in this last midterm election. Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.
Conservative Democratic voters and Independents finally saw through the empty gestures, hypocritical populist rhetoric and political demagoguery of the Republicans in this last midterm election. Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.
Conservative Democratic voters and Independents finally saw through the empty gestures, hypocritical populist rhetoric and political demagoguery of the Republicans in this last midterm election. Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.
“Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.”
Still with the defamation?
“Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.”
Still with the defamation?
“Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.”
Still with the defamation?
“Rexroad’s political game is patterned after his fallen Republican political guru, Karl Rove, whose playbook in now in the trashbin.”
Still with the defamation?
Just so I’m clear: association with Rove equals defamation?
Just so I’m clear: association with Rove equals defamation?
Just so I’m clear: association with Rove equals defamation?
Just so I’m clear: association with Rove equals defamation?
Rich: Supposedly my numbers were taken from the census. I also found it interesting that there were two sets of numbers one was median household income and one was median family income.
I’m not sure that’s useful or anything.
I understand your point about workload, but my primary concern is about ability to attract quality people who are willing to come forth and run. I think there are a lot of people who would be good public servants but who would not have been able to afford to live on $49,000 per year. Hell I know I can’t.
Then the question is: is a payraise to $63K enough. I understand the budgetary concerns, but we’re only talking about five people’s salaries here, so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K. I don’t know enough about the county budget, but I would suspect that would not break the bank. And I do think that attracting quality candidates to run in the future is a worthwhile investment.
Just my thoughts.
Rich: Supposedly my numbers were taken from the census. I also found it interesting that there were two sets of numbers one was median household income and one was median family income.
I’m not sure that’s useful or anything.
I understand your point about workload, but my primary concern is about ability to attract quality people who are willing to come forth and run. I think there are a lot of people who would be good public servants but who would not have been able to afford to live on $49,000 per year. Hell I know I can’t.
Then the question is: is a payraise to $63K enough. I understand the budgetary concerns, but we’re only talking about five people’s salaries here, so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K. I don’t know enough about the county budget, but I would suspect that would not break the bank. And I do think that attracting quality candidates to run in the future is a worthwhile investment.
Just my thoughts.
Rich: Supposedly my numbers were taken from the census. I also found it interesting that there were two sets of numbers one was median household income and one was median family income.
I’m not sure that’s useful or anything.
I understand your point about workload, but my primary concern is about ability to attract quality people who are willing to come forth and run. I think there are a lot of people who would be good public servants but who would not have been able to afford to live on $49,000 per year. Hell I know I can’t.
Then the question is: is a payraise to $63K enough. I understand the budgetary concerns, but we’re only talking about five people’s salaries here, so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K. I don’t know enough about the county budget, but I would suspect that would not break the bank. And I do think that attracting quality candidates to run in the future is a worthwhile investment.
Just my thoughts.
Rich: Supposedly my numbers were taken from the census. I also found it interesting that there were two sets of numbers one was median household income and one was median family income.
I’m not sure that’s useful or anything.
I understand your point about workload, but my primary concern is about ability to attract quality people who are willing to come forth and run. I think there are a lot of people who would be good public servants but who would not have been able to afford to live on $49,000 per year. Hell I know I can’t.
Then the question is: is a payraise to $63K enough. I understand the budgetary concerns, but we’re only talking about five people’s salaries here, so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K. I don’t know enough about the county budget, but I would suspect that would not break the bank. And I do think that attracting quality candidates to run in the future is a worthwhile investment.
Just my thoughts.
“… so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K.”
Yeah, that’s a good point. (It’s probably a bit more than that, as these folks will qualify for pension benefits down the road, based on their salaries received while working.)
One thing that is unusual about the job of a supervisor is how unsupervised the supervisors are. I am told that the jobs are “full-time jobs” — and if I know anything about elected officials, many of them put in more than 40 hours a week most weeks — but it’s hard to know how much or how hard any one supervisor is working.
How many weeks a year are the supervisors working? Do they meet every week? Do they ever take vacations? Do some work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and others work 10 hours a week, 40 weeks a year?
I don’t know of anyone in Yolo County politics who ever worked harder than David Rosenberg. But when he was a “full-time” supervisor, he still had time to have a law practice, to run the California Lottery, and to work as an advisor to Gov. Gray Davis.
Others in the past have also had other jobs in addition to being “full-time” supervisors. So it seems somewhat optional as to just how many hours each supervisor puts in.
I could be convinced that this is a bad idea, but maybe (if we are going to give these folks a huge increase in pay) we should demand that they publish an hours chart each week, showing just how many hours they worked exclusively in their capacities as supervisors. If each did this, voters might be more compelled to believe that they are getting their money’s worth. It might on the other hand demonstrate the difference between those supes who work over time and those who are mostly just collecting their paychecks.
“… so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K.”
Yeah, that’s a good point. (It’s probably a bit more than that, as these folks will qualify for pension benefits down the road, based on their salaries received while working.)
One thing that is unusual about the job of a supervisor is how unsupervised the supervisors are. I am told that the jobs are “full-time jobs” — and if I know anything about elected officials, many of them put in more than 40 hours a week most weeks — but it’s hard to know how much or how hard any one supervisor is working.
How many weeks a year are the supervisors working? Do they meet every week? Do they ever take vacations? Do some work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and others work 10 hours a week, 40 weeks a year?
I don’t know of anyone in Yolo County politics who ever worked harder than David Rosenberg. But when he was a “full-time” supervisor, he still had time to have a law practice, to run the California Lottery, and to work as an advisor to Gov. Gray Davis.
Others in the past have also had other jobs in addition to being “full-time” supervisors. So it seems somewhat optional as to just how many hours each supervisor puts in.
I could be convinced that this is a bad idea, but maybe (if we are going to give these folks a huge increase in pay) we should demand that they publish an hours chart each week, showing just how many hours they worked exclusively in their capacities as supervisors. If each did this, voters might be more compelled to believe that they are getting their money’s worth. It might on the other hand demonstrate the difference between those supes who work over time and those who are mostly just collecting their paychecks.
“… so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K.”
Yeah, that’s a good point. (It’s probably a bit more than that, as these folks will qualify for pension benefits down the road, based on their salaries received while working.)
One thing that is unusual about the job of a supervisor is how unsupervised the supervisors are. I am told that the jobs are “full-time jobs” — and if I know anything about elected officials, many of them put in more than 40 hours a week most weeks — but it’s hard to know how much or how hard any one supervisor is working.
How many weeks a year are the supervisors working? Do they meet every week? Do they ever take vacations? Do some work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and others work 10 hours a week, 40 weeks a year?
I don’t know of anyone in Yolo County politics who ever worked harder than David Rosenberg. But when he was a “full-time” supervisor, he still had time to have a law practice, to run the California Lottery, and to work as an advisor to Gov. Gray Davis.
Others in the past have also had other jobs in addition to being “full-time” supervisors. So it seems somewhat optional as to just how many hours each supervisor puts in.
I could be convinced that this is a bad idea, but maybe (if we are going to give these folks a huge increase in pay) we should demand that they publish an hours chart each week, showing just how many hours they worked exclusively in their capacities as supervisors. If each did this, voters might be more compelled to believe that they are getting their money’s worth. It might on the other hand demonstrate the difference between those supes who work over time and those who are mostly just collecting their paychecks.
“… so we are talking about a total of $35K difference to the county between the $63K under the other system and the $70K.”
Yeah, that’s a good point. (It’s probably a bit more than that, as these folks will qualify for pension benefits down the road, based on their salaries received while working.)
One thing that is unusual about the job of a supervisor is how unsupervised the supervisors are. I am told that the jobs are “full-time jobs” — and if I know anything about elected officials, many of them put in more than 40 hours a week most weeks — but it’s hard to know how much or how hard any one supervisor is working.
How many weeks a year are the supervisors working? Do they meet every week? Do they ever take vacations? Do some work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and others work 10 hours a week, 40 weeks a year?
I don’t know of anyone in Yolo County politics who ever worked harder than David Rosenberg. But when he was a “full-time” supervisor, he still had time to have a law practice, to run the California Lottery, and to work as an advisor to Gov. Gray Davis.
Others in the past have also had other jobs in addition to being “full-time” supervisors. So it seems somewhat optional as to just how many hours each supervisor puts in.
I could be convinced that this is a bad idea, but maybe (if we are going to give these folks a huge increase in pay) we should demand that they publish an hours chart each week, showing just how many hours they worked exclusively in their capacities as supervisors. If each did this, voters might be more compelled to believe that they are getting their money’s worth. It might on the other hand demonstrate the difference between those supes who work over time and those who are mostly just collecting their paychecks.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office.”
Actually, I would rather have my Supervisors motivated strictly by altruism.
The bigger obstacle to serving as Supervisor is not how much you make when you’re in office, but how much it costs to get elected. That’s something that raising the salary will do nothing to fix.
I would rather see the money that went towards giving them a raise be used for clean money (public financing). I’m not sure Yolo County can legally implement public financing without becoming a chartered county, but that’s what I think.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office.”
Actually, I would rather have my Supervisors motivated strictly by altruism.
The bigger obstacle to serving as Supervisor is not how much you make when you’re in office, but how much it costs to get elected. That’s something that raising the salary will do nothing to fix.
I would rather see the money that went towards giving them a raise be used for clean money (public financing). I’m not sure Yolo County can legally implement public financing without becoming a chartered county, but that’s what I think.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office.”
Actually, I would rather have my Supervisors motivated strictly by altruism.
The bigger obstacle to serving as Supervisor is not how much you make when you’re in office, but how much it costs to get elected. That’s something that raising the salary will do nothing to fix.
I would rather see the money that went towards giving them a raise be used for clean money (public financing). I’m not sure Yolo County can legally implement public financing without becoming a chartered county, but that’s what I think.
“We cannot rely purely on altruism or independent wealth to get the very best people to serve in public office.”
Actually, I would rather have my Supervisors motivated strictly by altruism.
The bigger obstacle to serving as Supervisor is not how much you make when you’re in office, but how much it costs to get elected. That’s something that raising the salary will do nothing to fix.
I would rather see the money that went towards giving them a raise be used for clean money (public financing). I’m not sure Yolo County can legally implement public financing without becoming a chartered county, but that’s what I think.
Rich:
Knowing Yamada fairly well, I’m convinced she puts in at least 80 hours a week, if not more. Is that typical? I couldn’t say.
Anonymous:
Barrier to get into office is important, but I also believe there is a reluctance for qualified people to serve in government because of the pay. That is unavoidable, however, I would like to think we could at least reward our public servants with a decent living. If we deem them not worthy of the pay, we can always vote them out.
Rich:
Knowing Yamada fairly well, I’m convinced she puts in at least 80 hours a week, if not more. Is that typical? I couldn’t say.
Anonymous:
Barrier to get into office is important, but I also believe there is a reluctance for qualified people to serve in government because of the pay. That is unavoidable, however, I would like to think we could at least reward our public servants with a decent living. If we deem them not worthy of the pay, we can always vote them out.
Rich:
Knowing Yamada fairly well, I’m convinced she puts in at least 80 hours a week, if not more. Is that typical? I couldn’t say.
Anonymous:
Barrier to get into office is important, but I also believe there is a reluctance for qualified people to serve in government because of the pay. That is unavoidable, however, I would like to think we could at least reward our public servants with a decent living. If we deem them not worthy of the pay, we can always vote them out.
Rich:
Knowing Yamada fairly well, I’m convinced she puts in at least 80 hours a week, if not more. Is that typical? I couldn’t say.
Anonymous:
Barrier to get into office is important, but I also believe there is a reluctance for qualified people to serve in government because of the pay. That is unavoidable, however, I would like to think we could at least reward our public servants with a decent living. If we deem them not worthy of the pay, we can always vote them out.