Voters said NO to nonpartisan commissioners and adding two to make a total of five.
Voters said YES to bringing salaries back to reality.
OK. Let's go with that.
The Jackson County commissioners organized a spirited campaign and they won on two of the three ballot measures. Jackson County for All, the committee that wrote the ballot titles and gathered the signatures, made the salary reductions in measure three contingent on adding two commissioners. Since measure two failed, it means that the current salaries stay in effect.
The idea was that the three measures taken together would reorient the commissioners away from a circle-the-wagons partisan group looking inward and protecting their political turf. They would not be career employees of the county, getting longevity step increases in pay and serving as public relations staff to the county administrator. Instead, commissioners would be the public's representatives providing oversight and direction to the county management.
They were three separate issues in order to meet state law requiring that ballot measures be on a single topic.
The public's vote and the campaign in opposition taken together show that the "good government" concerns of Jackson County for All were not a strong motivator. There was no outpouring of support from non-affiliated voters, the group that would benefit most from the shift to nonpartisan commissioners.
The "NO" campaign argued that the extra representation was "big government" and unwelcome. Their campaign emphasized cost, saying it would cost "a LOT more." They argued that broader representation was not worth paying for. Using projections from the county administrator, the "NO" campaign warned that two additional commissioners would require major renovations at the courthouse. It warned that the two commissioners would share in the generous benefit packages that accompany the commissioners stated salaries. Surely, the public doesn't want those costs, the ads said. Apparently the public did not. It voted "no."
So I suggest giving the public exactly what the voters demanded, when they voted down measures one and two and supported the salary-cut measure. I suggest Jackson County for All immediately gather signatures for a single measure to reduce salaries back to a reasonable level. The job of county commissioner is not that of a county department head directly supervising staff within a field of expertise, e.g., road construction or land appraisal. It should not be paid like one. It is a job of representation, rather like a state senator. Both commissioners and state senators serve four year terms. The qualifications for each are the same -- being voted into office. Both jobs are significant commitments of time done out of a sense of public service. State senators are paid $35,052/year. That is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Because the commissioner job does not require temporary housing in Salem and travel back and forth to it, there is no need for the "per diem" pay currently paid to state senators.
The "NO" campaign has alerted voters to the potential that commissioners vote themselves significant pay in travel and telephone perks in addition to the stated salary. That loophole should be closed.
I suggest a simple, straightforward ballot measure. Cut commissioner salaries to be equal to the salaries paid to state senators and make any payment for expenses contingent upon supplying receipts for actual mileage and business costs. If, for legal reasons, it is necessary to define the job and relate it to the salary to avoid the commissioners claiming that their salaries cannot be cut, then put words in the measure that clarify that the commissioner job is one of representation, not departmental management. And since state senator pay could increase without consent by local voters, put a cap into the measure. A measure might read something like:
"The job of county commissioner is one of representation and oversight, so the salary shall equal the salary paid Oregon state senators, but not more than $40,000 a year unless amended by Jackson County voters. Any additional payment to commissioners shall be reimbursement for actual expenses incurred in carrying out official business of the county."
If commissioners are paid like state senators perhaps they will begin acting like the people's representatives, not like county department heads clinging to their jobs. They don't work for the county administrator. They work for the public.
The people have spoken. They want small government and lower costs. Let's give it to them.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
12 comments:
The present county commissioners must really dislike you Peter. They did a sneaky one with the requirements, but your idea would surely win in a vote. Will true democracy win?
The State Senate is in session for only part of the year, so being a State Senator is a part-time job. Commissioners meet throughout the year, and it's more of a full-time job than being a State Senator, so they should get paid more.
When CW Smith and Jack Walker were Commissioners (in about 2006), they were paid $69,000 annually. It doesn't appear to be equitable to pay the current Commissioners less that what CW Smith and Jack Walker got. How much were Peter Sage and Tam Moore paid in 1980 when they were Commissioners?
I agree that the current Commissioners are overpaid, and what makes it worse that they've given themselves 10% raises annually for the past few years. That's more that the general public got. The Commissioners are clearly self-serving.
Commissioners in other Counties such as Josephine County get about $75,000 annually in salary, and I think that would be a fair salary for the current Jackson County Commissioners.
I suppose we could say the election was rigged and claim it was stolen, but what kind of idiot would swallow such nonsense?
168,000 registered voters - 45,000 voted.
Is that right? About 25%?
If this is true then the real winner of this election was apathy.
Prior to my election in 1980 commissioners were paid about $28,000 a year. They gave themselves a pay raise. I campaigned against that and said they should rescind it. I said I would donate back $600/month (about a quarter of the pay)to local nonprofits until the pay raise was rescinded. In my second year as a commissioner the three of us rescinded the pay raise.
The state senate job has a busy season and then ongoing obligations. The state senate is a good starting point. I suppose a compromise would be about $75,000 a year, which is what the proposal that passed proposed. A better proposal would be one that included the clause forbidding big slush fund accounts for mileage, technology, cell phones, etc. It is a huge loophole for commissioners, and a bigger one for Danny Jordan.
The public voted against "bigger government" so lets start with the most obvious place, the commissioners' very sweet deal they vote for themselves.
66,000 ballots were returned as of Tuesday but still not great. I am confused as to why the JC4A folks put this on the primary ballot and not the general election.
Whyu the May ballot?
They thought things would be very partisan in November and they wanted to bring out the "good government" vote. Plus, they thought and oped that nonaffiliated voters, the biggest group, might turn out because there was something of significance to vote for.
They didn't.
So nonaffiliated voters will continue to be locked out of voting for the finalists for the position of county commissioner. But perhaps nonaffiliated is really just a disguise for "not all that interested."
Peter Sage
During the extensive time I spent gathering signatures and knocking on doors, two things in particular stood out, glaringly. The number of people who had never heard anything about the ballot Measures, and even larger numbers of people who were astonished at the amounts of money the Commissioners arrange to pay themselves. It's now apparent, at least to me, that tying the increase in Commissioners to the Salary Reduction was a tactical error of major proportions .
I agree with everything Peter is proposing as far as their compensation is concerned. I don't know if codifying into the Charter a new Compensation Plan becomes a separate question, but would urge any Committee designing a new Measure to seek competent legal input to perhaps forestall any lawsuits by the County Administrators and his puppets on the BoC.
I would support what Peter suggests.
I think the county should also be prohibited from golden parachutes like Jordan has. That really hamstrings our representatives.
Has anyone looked at all of Jordan's perks?
Among others, he gets a new BMW every year, his Home is either paid for by the County or heavily subsidized, he gets approximately $2,000 a month for Medical Insurance, special cell phone deals, and other little perks, but those are the only ones I'm aware of.
Peter may have a more accurate description of what he gets than I have.
2 of 3 Commissioners could enact what the measures proposed. So another alternative is simply electing (true) small government Commissioners who promise to take the job for reasonable pay.
If they can make it past the Republican Gauntlet.
Post a Comment