Friday evening we got a call from a survey worker. The worker wanted to ask questions about different
aspects of the Placer County Board of Supervisors compensation increase proposal. There were many questions split between two general
topics. Since only a sampling are likely be surveyed it seemed prudent to write about it.
Topic one was the largest and focused on what aspects of a proposal one might support. Questions about salary formulas, benefit types and salary amounts. When they ask about salary amount they start high and work their way down until you say yes. The incremental drops are rather large so don’t be surprised if it drops from “seems a bit high” to “wow that makes me sound like a cheapskate”.
Topic two was what would be the best arguments and endorsements to win ones support. I thought that we did a pretty good job of exposing absurd arguments in a previous post but there were all of those and many more asked about in these questions. Multiple choice and a need for quantification keeps one from really giving an opinion to the questioner but none of those mentioned moved me to much more than a chuckle. One that stood out was the argument that with higher salaries the BOS would not have to depend so much on staff as they would be able to work on the boards' work full time. That argument is only true if some senior staffers are removed due to a reduced workload from the change and any supervisor accepting the raise would have to agree that it is the only job that they can have. This is about the legitimacy of the argument and not a suggestion for either addendum to it be used. I support a reasonable raise for what I think they do now, not on something that may or may not actually happen in the future.
Topic one was the largest and focused on what aspects of a proposal one might support. Questions about salary formulas, benefit types and salary amounts. When they ask about salary amount they start high and work their way down until you say yes. The incremental drops are rather large so don’t be surprised if it drops from “seems a bit high” to “wow that makes me sound like a cheapskate”.
Topic two was what would be the best arguments and endorsements to win ones support. I thought that we did a pretty good job of exposing absurd arguments in a previous post but there were all of those and many more asked about in these questions. Multiple choice and a need for quantification keeps one from really giving an opinion to the questioner but none of those mentioned moved me to much more than a chuckle. One that stood out was the argument that with higher salaries the BOS would not have to depend so much on staff as they would be able to work on the boards' work full time. That argument is only true if some senior staffers are removed due to a reduced workload from the change and any supervisor accepting the raise would have to agree that it is the only job that they can have. This is about the legitimacy of the argument and not a suggestion for either addendum to it be used. I support a reasonable raise for what I think they do now, not on something that may or may not actually happen in the future.
Toward the end of the call questions were asked about the
sway certain endorsements might hold. The Placer County Republican Central
Committee was mentioned but the Placer County Democratic Central Committee was
not. The League of Placer County
Taxpayers was brought up but I am not sure if it was the old League dissolved by
Wally Reemelin in 2011 which was the driving force behind the 30K ceiling back
in 1992, or the League that Reemelin felt had high jacked that groups name and collected an FPPC fine in 2013. A Sherriff’s
Deputy organization as well as the League of Women Voters of Placer County were
also asked about.
No comments:
Post a Comment