Here are two things we believe to be true about the recent
comparison of elected officials’ compensation at four local
governmental bodies that The Dispatch recently published.
Here are two things we believe to be true about the recent comparison of elected officials’ compensation at four local governmental bodies that The Dispatch recently published. It absolutely is appropriate to review the cost of compensation and benefits provided to our elected officials and to compare the compensation packages various boards in our region approve for themselves.
In these tight economic times, these kinds of comparisons are even more apt and more important.
We’re willing to bet that most taxpayers had no idea that they were paying health benefits for school district and community college trustees, for city council members and water district board members. Except for the Gilroy Unified School District trustees, those health benefits reach five figures per elected official.
These positions are not full-time work, a common requirement for most private sector employees to receive health benefits. Many would not qualify as half-time positions.
Yet elected officials – every one of which has told taxpayers that they must cut services or raise taxes due to budget constraints – continue to accept health benefits at a hefty cost to taxpayers. In some cases, those benefits far exceed what’s available for most private sector employees.
Among the local boards The Dispatch recently reviewed, one overly benevolent body stands out: the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The average water district board member receives $33,352 in stipends and medical benefits. Board members have the potential to earn $47,714 in stipends and health benefits. For 2003, the water district spent more than $233,400 on stipends and health benefits for board members.
Water board directors are members of the only body of the four The Dispatch reviewed that will receive a raise next year.
But we’re not done with this galling analysis. This is the same board that, after approving a stunning 25 percent rate hike earlier this year, is seriously considering slashing flood-control services and raising fees to cover a transfer of property taxes to the state.
We value the important work that our public officials perform, and understand that they put in many hours beyond the time they spend on the dais. But we also understand that taxpayers work hard, and that every dime that goes to compensate public officials comes from taxpayers’ pockets. Especially where the water district board – the body that is by far most magnanimous with its own compensation and benefits – is concerned, taxpayers have every reason to be skeptical.
It takes a considerable amount of chutzpah to outstrip similar boards by more than double while at the same time voting themselves a raise and following one hefty fee hike with talk of another hike and a reduction of services. But that’s the reality of our Santa Clara Valley Water District Board.
We can only hope that shining a light on this onerous situation will reduce water board directors’ taste for tax increases and service cuts, and will shame them into reducing their own ample compensation before approaching taxpayers with their hands out again.
