BOS Raises Absurd Arguments Abound

I wanted to get this done before tomorrow’s meeting so that it will not appear to be personal.  I know a couple of these board members and have huge respect for them.  Politics is a business with plenty of absurd arguments and this topic is no exception.  It is natural for people to gild the lily or even spin things a bit.  While absurd arguments abound there is only one question that really needs to be answered:  Is 30k per year adequate compensation?  That is not however where we are going with this discussion.  Below are pro and con arguments that were used from the last failed measure attempt to change county supervisor compensation.

Con:  It is a part time job.

I can’t speak directly for all of the BOS but I have watched my own 5^th District Supe and she is very active, for her it is absolutely a full time job and she puts in long hours to do it.  The list of meetings that she attends to represent the county and reach out to constituents is very long.  While we are on the subject we should not count community events such as fund raisers etc.  Many community members not on a government payroll attend and work these functions without compensation; a supervisor should be no exception.  Even with this caveat people that call it a part time job probably have no idea what their supervisor does.

Pro:  I don’t care about this myself but it is for future boards.

It is hard to avoid being snarky at this argument but if that is true then I have an idea.  The ballot measure should be worded to take effect January 1^st, 2020.  Then no current board member will enjoy the increase in compensation without their constituent’s approval.  It might also help to get it passed in November by quieting the naysayers that use past board positions as a reason.  Call me a cynic I am not thinking that I will see a measure with that wording come Election Day. 

Con: Your board does not deserve addition compensation because they voted to…..

I would expect that we will see plenty of this.  I remember it from the last time.  We cannot hold this board and board members not yet elected responsible for their insensitivity to whatever cause you hold dear.  This issue should be decided on what we expect them to do and what we feel that is worth.   We hold our elected officials accountable every four years, not before we might have even met them.  If you don’t like the vote on your issue then get out and find someone that you can support to run against them.

Pro: The Charter Committee unanimously voted to recommend…

While it is accurate one cannot make this point without also mentioning that the Charter Committee was appointed by the board and one of the voting members was a paid senior staffer that served at the pleasure of the Board.  It may be an accurate statement but it is a questionable argument at best. 

Pro: Lower salaries could affect the ability of Placer County to attract people of quality

I saved the most absurd for last and longest.  First let us consider well compensated elected bodies such as the California Legislature, need I say more?  We have counties and cities that paid their boards and councils far better that were recently on the verge of bankruptcy.  If we do things by comparison to our board there should be a statewide effort to reduce every politician in the state to 30K per year.  We have done very well for what we are willing to pay.  We have been paying 30K per year since 1992 and never once have I heard that we had to beat on doors in every village in the county looking for someone dumb enough to run.  In 2012 District 5 had five candidates running for that 30K a year job and at least three of them were qualified to do the job.  The same district in 2008 had three candidates and all were qualified.  In 2006 District 2 had a race that some accounts say the hard and soft money went over a million dollars.    We do not have to provide adequate compensation to get great talent but we should do it because it is the right thing to do.