Chairman of Board of Supervisor casts 70+ Sierra County Citizens as "self-centered and misleading".

In a Sierra Booster article published today, Peter Huebner, Chairman of the Sierra County Board of Supervisors says that the 70+ residents of Sierra County who have signed the letter protesting the Dept. Heads' and Supervisors' raises are "a few residents from Loyalton, or Sierra County are not only self-centered, but also somewhat misleading."

He starts his letter by thanking "all of the people who called me with their support". Who are those people, Mr. Huebner, and how many were there? We have our names and numbers documented.

It appears that Mr. Huebner also thinks the spokesperson for the group is "perfect", claiming that he is not having a senior moment. Not sure what that is all about.

His biggest issue seems to be that the "spokesperson has never contacted me by phone, or in person, before or after the many meetings with their concerns." He seems ignorant of the fact that he is not my supervisor. I have contacted and spoken with my supervisor. Despite that, he apparently did not hear our last assertion that as citizens of the United States of America, we can (and intend to) speak for ourselves.

As for Mr. Huebner's plea that the people in Sierra County "trust me to make the right decision", he seems to have forgotten that at the last Supervisor's meeting, he had to admit that he had no idea that he had voted to give the Dept. Heads an 11% raise in 2006.

So, stand by (film at 11!). The "perfect" spokesperson intends to give Mr. Huebner a call and try to get some clarity on all of this. Stay tuned!

Current status of salary raise protest 16 Apr 2007

We have established this blog to provide a documented record of the steps being taken to continue our protest of the Sierra County Dept. Heads and Board of Supervisors' requests for raises in addition to the 11% they received last year (2006). If you would like to go on record as supporting this effort, please make a comment to that effect. Once moderated, it will be posted here. You will need to provide your full name and place of residence (e.g., Sierra County, Loyalton, Satley, etc.) We currently have over 70 signatures on our original letter which is the first post on this blog. There are other issues in the county which need addressing and feel free to use this as a sounding board. If appropriate, we will forward your comments to the appropriate people.

Third presentation to Sierra County Board of Supervisors, 20 March 2007

This presentation was made to the Sierra County Board of Supervisors at their second meeting in March of 2007 in Loyalton. It was our 3rd appearance before the Board and was a direct response to the uncivil comments made by the Chairman and the Director of Transportation and Planning to the citizens who had come before them to plead for fiscal responsibility. At the outset of the meeting, the Chairman stated that he intended to tender his resignation if the Board of Supervisors did not vote themselves a raise. He did not get much of a response from his fellow Supervisors. An abridged version of this letter appeared in the Sierra Booster.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors,

Well, here we are in what we hope is our final appearance before you to provide an update on citizen activity regarding the pending proposal from the Sierra County Department heads for a salary and benefits increase.

I continue to represent concerned citizens of Sierra County and we continue to gather signatures supporting the position that the current MOU be maintained and that no increase in salary or benefits be negotiated with the County Dept. Heads. We continue to believe that any raise in salary and/or benefits is fiscally irresponsible. And we further state that this position extends to any raise proposed for the Board of Supervisors.

That being said, we would like to make several observations.

First. At the last Board of Supervisors meeting, Chairman Huebner stated that “This meeting today and next week, it’s ridiculous. The only objection we have hear is from Loyalton. Is there any one from Goodyear’s Bar or Allegheny? No. It’s disgusting. I’m disgusted with the process in Sierra County. I’ve spoken with people in Verdi and they are fine with it.” We know of several people from Calpine and Sierraville who have communicated their displeasure at the thought of these raises to Supervisor Nunes. We now have signatures from representative citizens in Sierraville, Sierra City, Goodyear’s Bar and Downieville. So far in the two public discussion periods held on this matter, no citizen, other than the Dept. Heads themselves, has come before this legislative body to support the raises. We beg to differ with you, Mr. Chairman. We believe that there is county wide dissatisfaction with this proposed increase.

Second. We have as yet, not received any interest in this story from any of the outlets we have contacted. We anticipated this, considering the size of our county. However, we have not lost heart that as this develops and unfolds, we will get some interest. Especially since we anticipate having the same issues arise as the Supervisors discuss the potential for approving their own raises. Consequently, we will continue to pursue this avenue as a way to raise awareness and bring some needed attention to the plight of our county and its citizens.

Third. Chairman Huebner stated that he was personally appalled by the presentations made by our citizens group. He used the words disgusted, ridiculous, threatened, cheap shot, repeatedly in characterizing the citizen effort to have an open debate. He was joined in this “disgust” by the Director of Planning and Transportation who characterized the debate as “spiteful, …a campaign to discredit the employees, …personal attacks,…and the distribution of material that is less than factual.” As was stated eloquently by Mr. Tom Dotta, Sierra County resident, all of these behaviors served only to be an attempt to discourage the citizens from what is their right – to participate in a discussion about how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent. We have been nothing but forthright about our concerns and particularly open and above board in what our intent and process was. We did that in good faith, hoping to achieve a discussion. So much for the “Opportunity for the public to provide input” as stated by County Counsel.

Fourth. Contrary to what was asserted by Chairman Huebner and the Director, this is not and never has been a campaign to discredit the work of the Dept. Heads. It remains only about the future solvency of the county. Unlike Chairman Huebner and the Director, we have not disparaged people by names or innuendos. All of the rhetoric in the local paper and provided by the County Auditor, notwithstanding, the facts are that the County Dept. heads’ salaries are out of line with their peers in other counties in the state, regardless of how many duties are ascribed to their job descriptions or the numbers of years of service. Certain statements were made to the effect that they could easily be compensated at outrageously higher salaries in the private sector. That, we maintain, is the tradeoff. You live and work in Sierra County because you have chosen to and presumably, you enjoy the life style. That doesn’t mean that we necessarily can afford to compensate you at the level you may desire. You may have to make a sacrifice if the dollars are that important to you. Frankly, given the level above the current county cost of living that most of the Dept. heads earn, we are surprised that you are willing to jeopardize that.

Fifth. In answer to Chairman Huebner’s assertions that his preference for this process would be that citizens would go through their respective Supervisors and trust them to make the right decisions, I quote Thomas Jefferson. “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent… or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen.” He goes on to state “that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” In this case, consider us armed with a stern resolve and a willingness to discourse. Several comments made by the Supervisors, including Chairman Huebner, have indicated that there have been decisions made in the past about salaries and benefits that bear some scrutiny. Consider us your impetus for that.

Sixth. And on a lighter note. The Director of Planning and Transportation indicated to the tune of 6 times that he is not ashamed of his salary. In the words of the immortal bard, adjusted of course to context, “We think the gentleman doth protest too much.” We are not proposing that his salary or any department heads’ be taken away. As to his assertion that he “works his butt of for it”; it would be unseemly for us to discuss his physical attributes. (and I promise not to put that in the paper.)

Seriously, gentlemen, hear us. We are not speaking from spite, threats, disgust, or the venom that has, wrongly, been attributed to us. We are speaking from concern for a county that is being pushed to its limits. Despite Supervisor Nunes’ staetment that “Sierra County is not going broke”, we do not believe that the budget can be managed by assertion. We believe that closer scrutiny by the citizens is appropriate and useful and we are resolved to help you do the right thing.

Thank you.

Dan Greenway and Gail M. Ellingwood, Sierra County Residents
Leroy and Marie Silver, Sierra County Residents
Jack and Betty Thatcher, Sierra County Residents
Bert and Marilyn Whittaker, Sierra County Residents

Second presentation to Board of Supervisors, 6 March, 2007

This second presentation to the Board of Supervisors was read during the regular meeting in Downieville in response to an agenda item where the Supervisors were discussing the proposed salary raises for the County Department Heads. During and after the meeting, both the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Director of Transportation and Planning castigated the citizens who were present. They asserted themselves to be "appalled, disgusted and threatened" by our attempt to voice our opinions on how the County spends our tax dollars. While we made a brief statement that a closer reading of our letters would evidence no threats and that our comments had been much more civil than anything that had been utter by a County official, the third posting in this series responds, formally, to this behavior. This letter was published in the Sierra Booster and the Mountain Messenger.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors,

I come before you today to provide an update on citizen activity regarding the pending proposal from the Sierra County Department heads for a salary and benefits increase.

I continue to represent concerned citizens of Sierra County and we continue to gather signatures supporting the position that the current MOU be maintained and that no increase in salary or benefits be negotiated with the County Dept. Heads. Our opinion is that any raise in salary and/or benefits is fiscally irresponsible. Several more letters to this effect from other citizens have appeared in the Sierra Booster. To our knowledge, no letters have appeared supporting an increase. Of particular note is that we have also been contacted by several county employees who were unwilling to sign the letter for fear of retribution, but who were vocal in their support of the position expressed in our letter.

While one story appeared in a local newspaper in favor of the raises, the level of inaccuracies and poor reporting bear some scrutiny. One can only imagine the fuzzy logic or new math employed by the individual in that paper reporting that “the annual cost to the general fund will be slightly more than $30,000.” (Please note that this error was acknowledged by the Board of Supervisors prior to my statement. The figure of $31,000 was only for 6 months.)

While we were, previously, content to focus on salary and benefits as a way to keep clarity around the situation, we will, if necessary, delve into the additional economic impacts presented by the MOU. These are significant when we consider dept. heads that may be on the verge of retiring. For example, department heads who retire or leave county service after only 10 years of service receive fully paid premiums on their health insurance until the age of 65. For certain department heads, this means that we, the taxpayers, could pay up to $1,000/month for several years for a single individual. We invite the local paper to do the math on that.

Also not previously discussed in this forum are the longevity increases received after 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 15 and 20 years of service. Nor have we addressed the retirement contributions included in the MOU. We assert and are prepared to publish statistics that Sierra County’s scales of compensation in these areas are on par with some of the highest rates paid by large corporations in this country. Impressive for the second least populated county in CA. We are mortgaging the future solvency of this county and for what?

What are we getting in return? The same local paper asserted that “Sierra County requires a knowledge and expertise rare in comparable positions “because we aren’t big enough to hire help, a manager must know every nut and bolt of his department. In addition, each shoulders chores outside the official description.” Consequently, we decided to gather data to see if this could be demonstrated.

To date, we are compiling and documenting a list of instances where this is not true. Some citizens and public agencies in this county are not getting their money’s worth now. A raise in the face of the examples we are following would only be adding insult to injury. We will be providing this data at a future time should it become necessary. We have not yet decided whether we should publish it at the public hearing in Loyalton or wait for the outcome of the vote on this matter. We are confident that once even the few examples that we are documenting are published, some of the county’s department head’s least concern will be whether they receive raises. Not in every case, certainly, but since this is what amounts to a collective bargaining situation, we feel that we must treat every one of the dept. heads as part of the group.

One point that the local paper made that rings true is “Many of the current crop of department heads are so firmly rooted in their jobs and the community that there is little risk of losing them.” Given the salaries and benefits that they are currently receiving, none of the citizens involved in this effort are surprised that they don’t want to leave. 4 out of the 9 newly elected department heads were elected from within their departments. This fact completely contradicts any purported arguments about the difficulty of retaining expertise in the county. On the contrary, that statistic alone is higher than job retention in almost any private business sector, a typically more competitive environment. .

Further, we have recently submitted this story to the following media outlets:

Bill O’Reilly, of The O’Reilly Factor
The Sacramento Bee
The Center for Investigative Reporting, and
Fox News

We will continue to submit updates to these organizations and to further disseminate our position to other media outlets. Our goal is to send information out to one news agency every day until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. We reiterate our possible consideration of a recall and/or a tax initiative.

In closing, we continue to urge you to do the right thing.

Thank you.

Dan Greenway and Gail M. Ellingwood, Sierra County Residents
Leroy and Marie Silver, Sierra County Residents
Jack and Betty Thatcher, Sierra County Residents
Bert and Marilyn Whittaker, Sierra County Residents

First Presentation to Board of Supervisors, 6 February 2007

The following letter was sent to the Sierra County Board of Supervisors in advance of their 6 February 2007 meeting. It was then read at the meeting during the public comment period and submitted to the Sierra Booster. Through an oversite, this first letter was not submitted to the Mountain Messenger, though subsequent letters were. The purpose of this forum is to inform citizen's of Sierra County of the facts. Take the time to read through subsequent postings and comments and you will find much to surprise and astonish you about the workings (and non-workings) of Sierra County politics.

Board of Supervisors
Drawer E
Sierra County, CA 95936
cc: Sierra Booster

To Whom It May Concern,

It is our understanding that the department heads of Sierra County (population 3,300) requested and received approximately an 11% salary/benefits increase in 2006.

It is also our understanding that said department heads are currently negotiating for a 2007 salary increase. This increase is based upon a wage survey averaging the salaries paid in the surrounding counties of Nevada (population 98,955), Lassen (population 33,828), Plumas (population 21, 321), Yuba (population 66, 734), Trinity (population 13, 149) and Alpine (population 1,262). Based on these averages the dept. heads are requesting between a 9% and 10% increase in total salary and benefits for this year.

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much logic behind this salary research. Comparing salaries with counties where the population is 4x (Trinity), 20x (Yuba), and 30x (Nevada) that of Sierra County is unreasonable. The only purpose that serves is to raise the median salaries to justify the increases being requested. If one looks at the obvious comparison, our neighbor Plumas County, one finds that in all but one case, their salaries are much lower than our dept. heads’ current salaries, not to mention the new salaries that are being requested. Plumas has 7x the population of our county yet their dept. heads, on a head to head comparison with ours, are compensated significantly less, with the exception of the Dept. of Transportation and Sanitation.

Further, at least 4 Sierra County department heads are newly elected in their positions. Three of them advanced from more junior positions in their departments to become department heads. So on top of the 11% that was negotiated last year, they also received an increase in salary for their promotions.

Here are a few more sobering facts, if the solvency of the county is not convincing enough:

• The latest cost of living increase for Social Security payments is 3.3%. If this request is approved, county officials will have received 7x that amount in the past two years (not counting the raises for the newly elected dept. heads).
• A CIA Operations Officer serving on the front lines of the human intelligence collection business by clandestinely recruiting and handling sources of foreign intelligence and serving the bulk of their time in overseas assignments make $50,839 to $70,558. (Every single one of the dept. heads exceeds this salary).
• Starting salary for an FBI agent is approximately $48,000 per year. A senior grade Special Agent with 12 years in the FBI makes approximately $87,000 per year. (Every single one of the dept. heads virtually equals or exceeds this salary.)
• The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year. (Several of the county officials rival that with their salary/benefits package).
• And this county has only 3,300 people to pay the bill
  

If these figures are overwhelming, consider the fact that the salary and benefits the county pays these people each year currently, totals over $1,200,000. For at least the past two years, we have experienced fiscal crises in the county. If the previous arguments are not sufficient to call into question the wisdom of going ahead with this fiscally irresponsible request, we have provided an addendum to this letter with salary comparisons from SalaryExpert.com. In every case, the data indicates that not only are the current requests for salary increase out of line with published government averages for these positions, it demonstrates that our county officials are already making more than most of their counterparts elsewhere in the state. And Sierra County is the “2^nd least populated county in California”.

Regards,

Dan Greenway and Gail M. Ellingwood, Sierra County Residents
Leroy and Marie Silver, Sierra County Residents
Jack and Betty Thatcher, Sierra County Residents
Bert and Marilyn Whittaker, Sierra County Residents

Note: Population figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Addendum: (Source for East Central California regional salaries: SalaryExpert.com)

Sierra County’s Assessor current salary: $86,730; total compensation with benefits: 144,922.
An Assessor working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 49,953. Half of those in this position would earn between 37,440 and 60,208 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data. When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 58,185.

Sierra County’s Auditor current salary: $86,730; total compensation with benefits: 119,267.

An Auditor working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 57,861. Half of those in this position would earn between 44,351 and 75,179 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 68,506. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

Sierra County’s Sheriff Coroner current salary: $104,244; total compensation with benefits: 168,753.
A Deputy Sheriff Coroner working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 59,710. Half of those in this position would earn between 44,042 and 79,594 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 70,662. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

Sierra County’s District Attorney current salary: $104,244; total compensation with benefits: 136,493.
A District Attorney working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 77,735. Half of those in this position would earn between 58,643 and 113,765 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 100,781. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

Sierra County’s Transportation/Planning Director current salary: $114,669; total compensation with benefits: 182,837.
A Transportation Director working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 61,128. Half of those in this position would earn between 42,129 and 78,397 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 78,199. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

The Planning Director working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 80,068. Half of those in this position would earn between 56,656 and 153,802 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 101,238. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

Sierra County’s County Clerk current salary: $86,730; total compensation with benefits: 119,267.
The County Clerk working in East Central California now earns an average annual salary of 67,857. Half of those in this position would earn between 54,292 and 88,010 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be 79,452. See the graph and table below to learn how the cost of living in this location affects the actual value of this salary.

(Note: These are conservative government estimates.)