HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12072006 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: John Cullen, County Administra la
®�
1 s t
DATE: December 7, 2006
STA CO-
SUBJECT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SALARY County
ORDINANCE \
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
INTRODUCE Ordinance No.:Ioo(04� to adjust the compensation for members of
the Board of Supervisors and for elected County officers, WAIVE reading, and
FIX December 19, 2006 for adoption.
BACKGROUND
In follow-up to the December 5, 2006 Board of Supervisors discussion regarding
Agenda Item D.5 — Salary Comparisons, the Board of Supervisors directed the
County Administrator and County Counsel to prepare an ordinance that would
adjust the Board of Supervisors' base monthly salary to be as close as possible
to the mean of the Bay Area counties. This comparison was selected after a
review of the December 5, 2006 material (also attached), which compares
Contra Costa County against the 14 most populous counties in California; the
Bay Area counties; and, the nine county "all employee" labor market. The use
of the Bay Area comparables was selected as a benchmark because it resulted
in the lowest adjustments to comparable counties. The Board of Supervisors
also directed that the ordinance include Deferred Compensation provisions that
apply to elected Department Heads, car allowance with mileage reimbursement,
and July 1, 2007 COLA granted to all employees.
In summary, the ordinance provides for Board of Supervisors base monthly
salary increase from $4,993 to $7,964; Deferred Compensation for all elected
County officers from $6,000 to $12,000 annually; and Auto Allowance from $550
to $600 per month.
The total annualized increased cost of this salary and benefit package is
approximately $300,333 for all five Board of Supervisors positions. This fiscal
year's cost will be approximately $100,111 and will be paid for in this year's
budget with additional revenue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: J
—_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C60ftTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
—ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER —
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,
dptG�a SEf1'r b�15�t�GT ATTESTED �'o I� 40ce
CONTACT: John Cullen,335-1086 JOHNTLEN,CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: County Counsel
Auditor-Controller
BY —
Attach.
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
(Compensation for Elected County Officers)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical
footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends Sections 24-26.006 and 24-26.008 of the
County Ordinance Code to modify compensation provisions for members of the Board of
Supervisors and other elected county officers.
SECTION 11. Section 24-26.006 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
24-26.006 Supervisors. a) Each supervisor, for service as such, shall receive a
base monthly salary at the following monthly rates as specified in the Contra Costa
County pay series schedule:
(1) From February 17, 2007 through June 30, 2007, a monthly salary of$7,964;
(2)From and after July 1, 2007, a monthly salary of$8,123.28.
(b)Additionally, each supervisor shall receive reimbursement for reasonable
expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of such office; such other benefits as are
provided other classified or exempt management employees; eligibility for a eighty-five
dollar monthly county contribution to the county's deferred compensation plan in the
same manner as other management employees; and an automobile allowance of six
hundred dollars per month,plus all mileage, at the rate per mile allowed by the Internal
Revenue Service as a deductible expense. Receipt of the automobile allowance requires
that a private automobile be furnished for county business. (Ords. 2006-70 § 2, 99-57 § 1,
98-15, 94-10, 93-38, 92-48, 92-17, 89-77, 87-101, 85-63, 84-55, 84-34, 81-68, 81-5, 79-
52, 79-35, § 3, 78-47 § 2, 77-68 §§ 1 & 2,76-59, 75-36, 74-49;prior Code § 2431.2; Ord.
70-68; Const. XI § 1(b), Gov. Code, § 25123.5, Elec. Code, § 9143).
SECTION M. Section 24-26.008 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
24-26.008 Elected county officers.
As compensation for not accruing paid vacation credit, including its
retirement benefits, each elected county officer shall be provided thousand twelve
thousand dollars as a deferred compensation contribution that will be added to the
elected county officer's deferred compensation account effective July V of each
(commencing July 1, 2007). If, after July 1, but before June 30, of the next
succeeding year, for any reason, the elected county officer's occupancy of office
terminates or expires,the elected county officer shall be entitled to a deferred
compensation account contribution prorated from July V to include the time
period the elected county officer served prior to the next June 30'. Further, if, for
any reason, all or part of such deferred compensation contribution cannot be made
into the deferred compensation account,the elected county officer shall be
entitled to an equivalent lump sum payment. None of the county's twelve
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
1
thousand dollar contribution may be used to establish eligibility and qualification
to receive the additional eighty-five dollar monthly deferred compensation
incentive otherwise provided by the county. (Ords. 2006-70, § 2, 99-57 § 1.)
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage,
and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting
for and against it in the , a newspaper
published in this County.
PASSED ON by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: JOHN CULLEN, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By [SEAL]
Deputy
SBAS
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
2
�1 C
YYYY
N
C
'E
m
T
O
7
h
m
J
C O O N N N (( D co co LO 0 O '
O
m LO n V' r N On V r O
C r r �'-
b
O O O O O O 0) O
O O O O O 0 O M O
O O O O O O O (MO r-
df O O O r N co M
{ Oi
M co N co 'IT V:
N N L
V> 6H (f> 69 64
coY
7 61>
w �c
E �,` n c c c m °'
V' ;; c E E E + M
o a
A m ' oo E a a soa 613,on c
.a `m ° Co O O ° y
7 w o
N N E p
LO
IA Q
� a 7
Q T co
V>
N �
O °
CL d ' m
E d o C0 C)
O r. G o 3 (vo aoo �
s9. vs v> e> (s3 61, LO
o
LO
ai m Z Q . 160
L
Q 4N1 N .
Q. a a 'O R O
Y. t0 7 7 7
Q W' O O O d r` U 7 7 .6 —6 ` W 3 O
U U y d d p N N a m W
0 41
chE d ,
cn U) an d 'E O
0 0 o y E 0 v
° a v m
o o rn U
00 00 (o Lo
d
CL
m
(O » ,- v ,- (n a m v N e e y
(p co N r Of co O O N 3
CC to ^ (D Of W Of Of Cm h O NNy C
"� fn 64 60). 61), � ON � � 6F, N N N
a
N
3
O O
N 9 7
N L O C
aD E a) E
U (G C Q C N
o m ° y NU a� U
V c a) °
m `�co
U mU m
o U m E2m ° Q d U E U N
E c °c c = m a c 25LL c > c >
M 0 cc coM 3 o E o E
f
CL
N
0
O
N
a`a
N
V
d
l0
i V
6
N
lU
J
O
W
C
'E
m
T
a
m
m
v
a
w
m
J
° D o O r o O o Cl) o o 0 0 0
0' LO
O co O co O O O M O CD O p O p
'O. N In O V O r N O (D M r- N M p ..
.:..G:.: N O Il cf) LO O -1t f` r, N O O N r p
d pr M r r r M 1`- r co ~ !D -
OO O O O O r O O O 0) O co O r
O O O O O O M O O c0 r O (D O O
O O O O O O O O O Up O r O O
'4)-" CD O O O O O to O O N O O N6 r
0) ` O O O OO U') O O Cl) O O .- O r—
T7 O O O O O O O O N1 O fl. O M
M O O O O c0 O O r co O 1� O M
O O O M CD O O co � O V co LO
co M M r 0 N N C M M M tT
O -- N M N If) r M M r r r N I r
69 69 69 ER 64 64 69 EA 69 (R 64 69 69 69
Y
E
r
o r w t o o w t aci
E c c o c E E c c ami E
d
lo
teE E E � = a) E E > T
o p E a s
A C E a 609 n a o >m (Da a E
p o po N oma 69 � 0) Ea
C) o ° 69 CN
E
169 c a00 a
L T
61)
a) a) a)
a U V N N co
Q T _ N- V O r O cf) O O O 7 O -
: M o E N o r� � o ao o E E
Q. O )` tD + c0 O M r.- N � to O + +
V O t Q 69 69 O (f3 (fJ 69 fH 69 69 69 69LO -It LO
lC1 O
LO I LO
O t Z 69 69T (R
� c
C
d d d d d D
N
C. c c c E c c d m c c
N o 0 E 0 0 0 ° o 0
m ° o' '° 'o '° o ° ? v 3 ° c c °
.a `) Im U U U U U d m o n 0 aN
) �` ami ayi �i
>> 0 0 0 0 0 O O a a
o a a o. a a .0 a _ > a m •0 m a n 3
m m n > > > .. _> w w
m m y m to m 4) d d a) d a, d a)
lC 7 w w w w w (n N U N N y y N (n S
O' O O O O O
LU
e o e e e N
O O O O O y
co co a0 O co
C
N
N N O to co co co tor d' r 's}' M ti M O N e e O.
10 O O O O O N V M O N (A to W h N d' 1` Ca
N O O O O 1-- 04 N O� a0 tl) 0) 0) co to co tO Cy
O) DD O n h c0 O ctl C('7 oCi tb M O
69 69 to 69 (H 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 tN 69
r
d
.N
0 o 3
c ° a) v c v `0 a)
° 0) c
O) N a) cp N 'O W C j 0 z a d 9 N D
rn °� U y m m ° c � m E °� U QZ ¢ E ai E
o, Q cu a`) E m c m ° E ° Q c ° c
° ` `' 2 w a) U ° U b
N m m Q > m c O Y m m c g 0) y
J (n
co N (n cn (j N U N U O
(n U a) U a)
C > c >
O '- O m
o E o E 0
a
m
m
0
8
ro
N
v
d
A
g
7
N
N
J
C
l0
C
m
f-
T
a
m
D
N
C O O !� O O O
O O O co O O 00 r LO O O
A O O M0 On c
(o O O
7- - O N L6 O N
G u) O O1� r`V N O N N C)
N n V r r '
O O O O O O W O O h
O O O O O O LO O 1 O _
j 0) O O O O O O O O �N-- r--
0.
O O O r P• M ..
D O O O O N M CD M
C)
M LO
coo M 't 000 Cl) 'V
m 64 69 6-, .
60) V> V
Y
E �
7 T w
�C. L-. ..
E,o ; E c o c c E
W . � c >
Ly. E >
a � � E E + a
v o f o a) o o o z
>+ o > E» a a o. '� a 69 c E
.:,.0.:.t 66,1 a co N N N E a
r In r
` 6964 to N E
a
� O
0 60g
a) m
a
co m c
Q V LG 7 0 N O E O N Cl Or- l� O E
() (� C :Q'...0 64 � co 613 � �
(/� V > LO O
f�l1 C Z
ayi a) ay) ay) ayi d
M V v v o v o m
C
d
Q z l0 O O O O O R > > c p
o U U U V a V N N 'p N
L E m d
O O O O O O O
C.
.�C y LL n, c a n. CL >' O .0 � >` a c
m = 3 3 7 7 7 U w w w
M U) U) y (n N fn d (n 2
O O O O O E
7 q
00 co 000 co Co Q U
c
nt
t i v v v v m co o In m rn co ccoo co ' a
c.A ,. 0 0 0 0 to co o) v, vi rn u7 so �i o
w w w � w � � Vk I--
6k n
C
a�
.y
O O c d
�
a 3 @ )
v
we y N U a) U
C O y y
V v m ° 'U m m o E m Q d U m U o
a) rn y E Z c m Z U a) Uro h
E a) C C C N j C Q D C > c > t9
Q O cn co cn U) U) cg 2 o E o E o
a
w
QoQ
2G
ro
N
N
v
a
7
N
(0
J
ADDENDUM to D.2
December 12, 2006
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered introducing Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust
the compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors and for elected County officers,
waiving reading, and fixing December 19, 2006 for adoption.
Chair Gioia introduced the item, noting that while it seems to be a conflict of interest for the
Board members to vote on their own salaries, it is what is required by State law and the purpose
is to have a transparent process. He said he realizes that recent equity adjustments for other
County employees were nowhere near a 60% increase, but that no County employees were being
paid 60%below the comparable salaries in comparison counties.
John Cullen, County Administrator,talked about the funding source that would pay for the
proposed increase. He said that the increase would require $100,000 for the remainder of this
Fiscal Year, and an average of$300,000 for future Fiscal Years. He said those dollars would
come out of increased revenue from an above-predicted assessed valuation of about 4%that was
not assumed in the Budget. He noted that funds used to finalize labor contracts have also come
from this source.
The Chair called for public comment. The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed
Ordinance:
Jo Bates, Business Agent, AFSCME 2700;
Brian Stone, resident of Benicia;
Margaret Harris;
Mike Weinberg, SEIU 535;
Teresa Howe, resident of Pittsburg;
Kathy McLaughlin;
Mary Gerrard, resident of Martinez;
Linda Best, resident of Concord;
Brenda Hardeman, resident of Martinez;
Chandra Day;
Allan Cohen, resident of Martinez;
Suzanne H. Davis, resident of Concord;
Lauren Unruh, resident of Pleasant Hill;
Roland Katz, resident of Martinez.
Kendra Cranshaw, Contra Costa Children and Family Services, submitted a petition opposing the
Ordinance.
E-mail correspondence was received from the following people in opposition to the proposed
Ordinance:
Brett;
Harold Bailey, resident of Alamo;
Kelly Pratt, resident of Brentwood;
T. Rhys;
Kathy Hughes, resident of Antioch;
ADDEND UM to D.2
December 12, 2006
Page 2 of 2
David Bradshaw;
Brian Stone, resident of Kensington.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance:
David Bowlby, resident of Alamo;
Bob Doran, resident of Discovery Bay;
Linda Best, Contra Costa Council (correspondence submitted);
Norm Hattick, resident of San Ramon
Michael Sarabia, resident of Bay Point;
Pat Leiser, resident of Antioch;
Scott Anderson, resident of Antioch;
Jo Ann Hanna, resident of Walnut Creek;
Ron Walker, President IAFF Local 1230;
Jim McMillan, resident of Richmond.
Supervisor Piepho spoke, recognizing the comments of the speakers. She responded saying that
it was 20-plus years of non-action that have brought the Board to this point. She said a catch-up
provision to spread the increase out over time would not work because the market, also,
continues to move ahead. She said this proactive step will help keep successive Supervisors from
having to face this kind of process for such a significant increase. She said this adjustment will
keep Contra Costa's Board of Supervisors in line with other counties in the region.
Chair Gioia stressed that this action was not intended to be an act of disrespect to any of the
County's employees. He said maybe exploring a different system for the Supervisors' salaries is
something for the future, but that the business today is to make the equity adjustments.
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel, said there were two typographical errors in the Ordinance
which he corrected for the record: in Section III, the first "thousand" should be removed from
the second line which reads, "...each elected county officer shall be provided dieusa4-twelve
thousand dollars..." and, in the same section, the word "year" should be added at the end of the
fourth line which reads, "...deferred compensation account effective July 15t of each [year]
(commencing July 1, 2007)."
By a unanimous vote with none absent and the District IV seat vacant, the Board of Supervisors
took the following action.-
APPROVED
ction:APPROVED INTRODUCTION of Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust the compensation for
members of the Board of Supervisors and for elected County officers, waived reading, and fixed
December 19, 2006 for adoption.
December 11, 2006
Supervisor John Gioia,Chair
and Members,Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine St.
Martinez,CA 94553
Chairman of the Board Dear Chair Gioia and Members of the Board:
Peter McGaw
Shareholder
AxherNoiw The Contra Costa Council supports the proposal to increase the monthly salary
Board Chair Elect of members of the Board of Supervisors from$4993 to$7,964.
Steve Lesher
Public Affairs Manager We recognize that the position of County Supervisor is more than a full timejob
Shelf Off Products U.S. >� po ty P J
Vice President—Finance and requires commitment, dedication to public service and just plain hard work.
Mike Billeci We are a County of more than one million residents,with widely varying
Regional President—treater Bay Area Region
Wells Fargo demographics and multiple challenges. County Supervisors wrestle with
complex policy issues and face difficult decisions on a regular basis in
Vice President•Events
Angie Coffee providing for the best interests of our residents. And with a budget of$1.5
Senior Vice Pmsident-Managing Director billion and 9,000 employees, it is a big business. It is only appropriate that the
Greater Say Bank Contra Costa Region
compensation reflect these requirements.
Vice President—Task Forces
Cheryll LeMay
Contra Costa Community College District It is clear from the survey that the County conducted that the current salary level
Vice President—Task Forces is far below the levels of similar size counties in both the Bay Area and the
Dan Muller State. An increase is long overdue. Pegging the increase to the mean of Bay
ShareholdedLawyer
Morgan Miller Blair Area counties seems to us to be a sound and justifiable approach.
Vice President—Communications
David Bowlby We recognize that a 60%increase, in the abstract,is a concern to many.
e B
Towl
he Bow/by Group,Inc However,this number reflects the many years the Supervisors have not voted
T
for a raise for themselves. We are sure the County appreciates the commitment
Vice President—Member Services
Vicky DeYoung and sacrifice of the Supervisors by delaying their raise for so long. We
Vice President encourage you to address the issue on a more regular basis in the future.
Cornish 8 Carey
Chief Legal Counsel We urge you to adopt the proposed ordinance,and we thank you for the
Edward Shaffer
Shareholder , important work that you do.
Archer Norris
Immediate Past Chair Sincerely yours,
Stan Taylor
Partner
Nossaman,Guthner,Knox&Elliott,LLP
President and CEO !✓
Linda Best Linda Best
President
1355 Willow Way,Ste.253,Concord,CA 94520 925.246-1880 925.674-1654 fax info@contracostacouncil.com www,contracostacouncil.com
<ccofcontra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty us>
net> cc: (7 Z
12/11!2006 08:40 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/deparUcao/agendacomments_form.ht
M
Username: Brett
UserAddress:
y UserTel:
UserEmail: bsandner73@yahoo.com
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: d2
Remote'Name: wp�
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4. D (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Date: 11 Dec 2006
Time: 08:39:57
comments:
You should be ashamed for asking for an increase of 60%. We are in a budget
crisis, laying off employees & closing facilites. Where are you getting the
extra $175, ODD a year for a 5 member board? I can see a COLA, like the
employees, but not a major increase. We aren't getting a COLA for sometime,
but a little $1500 check plus being taxed is what you should get. We work
hard &there are counties in the Bay Area that pay more to their supervisors.
The other Bay Area counties pay their workers more, also. That is your
argument for the increase. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. I
will be reminding my co-workers, when our contract is up, we better walk out &
strike. The Sups got there big increase, we need one also. I will remember to
not vote for your name when it's on the ballot.
<cc0ftontra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
n} .
net>-. cc:
12/10/2006 07:26 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_foem.ht .
m
Username: Harald A. Bailey
UserAddress: 1700 Cervato Circle, Alamo CA 94507
UserTel: 19259431170
UserEmail: halbailey@mphb.net
AgendaDate:
Option: D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7 .0; Windows NT 5.1;
InfoPath.1; IEMB3; IEMB3)
Date: 10 Dec 2006
Time: 07:26:43
Comments:
RECEIVED as Community E-chain position and forwarded with my personal
support:
D.1 item submission to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors as the
majority opinion among unincorporated communities in Contra Costa County:
Subject: Salary raises for CCC District Supervisors
1. The current supervisors have not, in the opinion of Contra Costa
unincorporated communities, earned their current salary due to failure to
consider community advisory, act in accordance with such advice, and respect
the rights of communities. WE support a deferral in pay of at least 20% of
current salaries until supervisors can achieve a service level to communities
recognized by a majority in the communities.
2. The current supervisors have executed political power rather than
service to cities and communities. WE support an immediate reduction of each
supervisor's staff by one representative and would require each supervisor to
be district representative at-large and listening on-site in our communities
on a full-time basis.
3. The current supervisors should not be provided any raise in
salary. WE agree that a raise in salary should be effective after the next
election in each district so that skilled managers and directors are attracted
to such offices to replace the current supervisors.
4. The current supervisors do not have an appropriate resume for a
director-level position in a US$ +1 Billion operation. WE support the
establishment of requirements for supervisor that includes professional
education, commercial and institutional direction, and fiscal/operational
.planning.
<cc0@contra.napanet. ` To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
>
netcc:
12/07/2006 06:24 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_torm.ht
m
Username:
UserAddress:
UserTel:
UserEmail:
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6,0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET
CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 07 Dec 2006
Time: 18:24:27
Comments:
As a Conty employee I am outraged by the fact the current board thinks it is
appropriate .to give themselves a 60% raise. In total we have received 11%
since 2001. So is they want to have a 11% like the rest of us fine. . . . .But
60%. . . .Gee I would like to have 60%. In the 22 years with the county all of
my cola's do not equal 60%. We have cut programs and laid off people, yet the
board thinks they deserve 60%.
Another questio. . . . .Where is the funding coming from????? Every time a
department wants to hire or upgrade staff we have to give the funding source
and it can't be County General Funds. So is there special grant paying for
this or General Fund money. Interesting how there was no money for the rank .
and file but the "magic money tree" has money for rhe board.
- <cc0fcontra.napanet. .: . To: <Comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
12/07/2006 06:27 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username:
UserAddress:
UserTel:
UserEmail:
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET
CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 07 Dec 2006
Time: 18:27:14
Comments:
As a Conty employee I am outraged by the fact the current board thinks it is
appropriate to give themselves a 60% raise. In total we have received 11%
since 2001. So if they want to have a 11% like the rest of us fine. . . . .But
60%. . . .Gee I would like to have 60%. In the 22 years with the county all of
my cola's do not equal 60%. We have cut programs and laid off people, yet the
board thinks they deserve 60% .
Another question. . . . .Where is the funding coming from????? Every time a
department wants to hire or upgrade staff we have to give the funding source
and it can't be County General Funds. So is there special grant paying for
this or is it General Fund money??? Interesting how there was no money for
the rank and file but the ',magic money tree" has money for rhe board.
<ccoftontra.napanet. To _<comments@cob.cccounty.us>
neb. cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
12/06/2006 12:07 PM http*//www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/deparUcaolagendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Kelly Pratt
UserAddress: 731 waterville dr, brentwood
UserTel: 510-459-6952 cell
UserEmail: kprattl8aol.com
AgendaDate: 12/05/06
Option: D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6. 0; Windows NT 5.0)
Date: 06 Dec 2006
Time: 12:07:47
Comments:
You as a board do not, do enough work to justify a 60% raise. Our county is in
need of better fire protection in the east, more sherifs through out the
county. This is just two items this county would be better off with. The money
you think you deserve should be put into better use. I agree that a raise
after 5 years is needed, but no more then 5% to 8% raise would be justified.
Remember you don't have to be a board member, go back to the private sector if
you want more money.
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
12/06/2006 12:45 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments-fofm.ht
m
Username: T. Rhys
UserAddress: 1478 Camino Peral
UserTel: 925.980.8186
UserEmail: trhys35@sbcglobal.net
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option: D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
InfoPath.1)
Date: 06 Dec 2006
Time: 12:45:02
Comments:
If you are too stupid to give yourselves "decent" raises every year you
shouldn't expect people who you give 0% raises to remotely sacrifice their
work or personal budgets for you to have a BULK raise - clearly if you're too
dumb to work the system as sneakily as other Boards, then you're not earning
your 60% raise. If you work too many hours, that is 'a choice that you
consciously make. Maybe you want to start an "Adopt-a-supervisor" charity next
year so we can gas up your SUVs and luxury cars - or support Uilkema's Mary
Kay representative!
P ty
<cc0(�3contra.ha anet. To: <eomments�cob.cccoun :us>
sF
net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
12/06/2006 01:22 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Kathy Hughes
UserAddress: 1320 Shaddick Drive, Antioch
UserTel: (925) 757-3964
UserEmail: kattyhugs@sbcglobal.net
AgendaDate:
Option: D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR
2.0.50727)
Date: 06 Dec 2006
Time: 13:22:44
Comments:
As a county employee for 31+ years, I think it is a slap in the face to be
voting yourselves such a huge raise when you voted to give county employees
virtually no raise for the next 2 years. I understand that you .are one of the
lowest paid boards for the bay area, but maybe you could have sprung this one
on us in increments over the next couple of years, not all at once. How dare
you give us 0%, 2% and 2% and then give yourselves 60%1 How
Contra Costa County once was known as one of the better paying counties
overall, but that is no longer the case. We work hard, then to have our share
of benefits rise and our wages to not even rise to, the cost of living level,
is absolutely ridiculous and sends a clear message to us all. This move tells
me how you really value our hard work as county employees!
This may become an issue when it's time to vote for the BOS once again. You
might want to rethink this one???
<cco @ contra.napanet. To:: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
12/11/2006 09:02 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: David Bradshaw
UserAddress: 50 Mt Whitney br
UserTel: 415 491-4799
UserEmail: dbradshaw@lucasvalley.net
Agenda.Date:
Option: D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7 .0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.1.4322)
Date: 11 Dec 2006
Time: 09:02:44
Comments:
Today we requested a copy of our property tax bill from the County's Tax
Collector's office. We were informed that they were too busy and we should
call. back some other time. We were just wondering, when do you folks think we
should call? Perhaps sometime NEXT YEAR would be more convenient? You have got
to be kidding. . .
Maybe if we PAID MORE TAXES we could get a bill?
We are all in very serious trouble.
David Bradshaw
KE%IN KEANE.Executive Editor&-Vice Phsident:Nms
DA\ HUHELD,Editorial Page Editor
l t_ i w�M �-kr%J V ...
Editorials
Unreasonable.raise
ONTRA COSTA COUNTY supervisors are way
off base in their proposal'to give themseldes a i
60 percent pay raise. That is especially true in `
a county that has experienced service reduc.- '
tions and faces a long-term financial challenge.
The proposed$35,652 pay increase comes just after the,
supervisors signed a contract with most county employees,
who will get no raise this year and only a 2 percent raise
in 2007 and 2008. '
The four sitting supervisors who favor the pay raise ar-
gue that they are the lowest paid among Bay Area counties.
At a salary of$59,916,along with a$6,600 car allowance and
S6,000 of deferred compensation,Contra Costa supervisors
believe they are not adequately paid.
They point to their peers in other Bay Area counties,
where the average pay is$95,568.What they don't seem to'
realize is pay scales in other counties are irrelevant.Counties
are not in competition with each other for supervisors,as '
Rollie Katz,business manager of Public Employees Union
Local No. 1,rightly pointed out.'
We often disagree.with Katz,but he is on target with his
criticism of the timing of a huge raise for supervisors'We
also wonder just where the extra$180,000 a year is going to
come from out of,a tight county budget.
Perhaps the most significant misunderstanding of the su-
pervisors,who believe they are entitted.to:a 60 percent raise,
was stated by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette.She
said,"This is a very uncomfortable spot to be in.But we man-
age a business of$1.5 billion and we have 9,000 employees."
County government is not a business;it's a taxpayer-
funded public service organization. Most important,supervi-
sors do not,or at least should not,"manage"anything.They
hire managers to do that job.
County Administrator John Cullen is the chief manager of
the county.He is the one who oversees the management of
the county.-Supervisors serve on an elected board with the
responsibility,of setting public policy and seeing that it is car-
ried out.In the past,people serving on public service boards,
used to be unpaid or get nominal stipends.Unfortunately,
that is no longer true. But that is no reason to pay elected lo-
cal officials huge salaries.It is also a gross conflict of interest
for elected board members to set their own salaries.Any in-
creases in pay should be made for future boards after the
next election.That would allow the voters to pass judgment.
if the supervisors go ahead with a 60 percent pay raise for .
themselves,they may still face the judgment of the voters m
a countywide referendum,which is sure to have broad sup-
port should it reach the ballot.
Contra Costa supervisors need to take a step back and re-
consider such a massive salary increase.Smaller incremental
raises,similar to what they offered county employees, might
be more acceptable. Supervisors should seek the opinion
of their constituents on the pay issue. Perhaps they also
could get some good advice from a county grand jury.
There is no good reason to act before receiving more out-
side input on the pay issue.
C � Liz
Subj: Ur to Editw re contra Board of Supervsiors'60% Raise-Conflict of Interest?
Date: 12110200610:54:38 AM Pad6c Standard Time
From: BESSTONE
To: leltersAcctimes.com
CC: BESSTONE,ttiuff@_gckrnes,.com
s
Letter to Editor of Contra Costa Times
CC Times Article re Bd of Sups 600A raise-Conflict of Interest?(vote yours4 a raise for Xmas!)
I read Ryan Huff-s article about the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors.seeking a 60%raise for themselves in the Wednesday
CC Times witb dismay and disbelief I then watched the piece of the web video of the Bd of Sups mtg at which this was
discussed While they might seem like reasonable peopleand don't want the maximum raise,just the average of the other
counties,they didn't address the obvious conflict of Interest issue nos make any attempt to distance themselves from this
obvious and serious conflict of interest.$-vera(obvious ways this could be accomplished: 1)Grant the raise to only to new
moommg members of the Board who never had the opportunity to vote for their own pay raise.2)Grant the raise to
Supervisors upon their reelection(voting public would have the opportunity.to voice their support for a Supervisor with a
raise).3)As Supervisor Glover suggested,move to a formula-based approach.(My thought for a reasonable formula-based
adjustment would be 10-12%per year until parity is reached with supervisors of other Bay Area Counties,including Solano.)
The article sure missed the conflict of interest that these Supervisors showed in supporting their large pay raise,even though
they felt all over themselves saying it was"never a good time"etc.
It seems that this 60%raise is being fast-tracked through the Ordinance process'while trying to garner the least attention
possible. This agenda item just available last Friday.Dec.* is slated(with no 2nd.reading)for December 12th's Board of
Supervisors meeting with a proposed effective date the Ordinance of December 19th. .The agenda item describes this
eaotmous 600A raise as an ordinance to"adjust the compensation." In my opinion an"adjustment"might be 10%-12°/x,
but the proposed 60%is a major overhaul,not merely an adjustment! This increase apparently is$300,333 per year,and this
yeses$100,111"will be paid for in this year's budget with additional revenue." What about future years? Given the
uncertainty of funding and looming county expenses,this raise of this sire should not be automatically extended to future
years
These Supervisors chose to serve and were voted in knowing full well the pay was bad and the hours were long. If the pay
had been increased 60%earlier,then maybe somebody else might have run.At a minimum the current Supervisors should
wait until they are reelected before accepting such an enormous pay raise.
Brian Stone(property owner in Kensington)
554 Cooper Drive ,
Benicia,CA 94510
Phone:707 748-5660
Text of Agenda Item for December 12-Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Meeting:
D.2 CONSIDER introducing Ordinance No.2006-70 to adjust the compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors
and forelex:ted County officers,waiving reading,'and fixing December 19,2006 for adoption.(100%County cost)(John
Cullen,County Administrator)(All Districts)
Letter to Editor of Contra Costa Times
KE\IN KENNE.Executive Editor&Vice Resident Nms
D.-X\ HUHELD.Editorial Page Editor
L L � lw.MVt�(e. iLt r5 �i
Ed%toriah i
Unreasonable raise.
ONTRA COSTA COUNTY supervisors are way
off base in their proposal to give themselves a i
60 percent pay raise. That is especially true in
a county that has experienced service reduc-
tions and faces a long-term financial challenge.
The proposed$35,652 pay increase comes just after the
supervisors signed a contract with most county employees,
who wiil get no raise this year and only a 2 percent raise
in 2007 and 2008.
The four sitting supervisors who favor the pay raise ar-
gue that they are the,lowest paid among Bay Area counties.
At a salary of$59,916,along with.a$6,600 car allowance and
S6,000 of deferred compensation,Contra Costa supervisors
believe they are not adequately paid. • . .
They point to their peers in other Bay Area counties,
where the average pay is$95,568.What they don't'seem to
realize is pay scales in other counties are irrelevant.•Counties•
=are not in competition with each other for supervisors,as
Rollie Katz;business manager of Public Employees Union
Local No. 1,rightly pointed out.
We,often disagree with Katz,but he is on target with his
criticism of the timing of a huge raise for supervisors.We
also wonder just where the extra$180,000 a year is going to ;
come from out of a tight county budget.
Perhaps,the most significant misunderstanding of the su-
pervisors,who believe they are entitled to a 60 percent raise,
was stated by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette.She
said,"This is a very uncomfortable spot to be in.But we.man-
age a business of$1.5 billion and we have 9,000 employees
County government is not a business;it's a taxpayer- ;
funded public service organization.Most important,supervi-
sors do not,or at least should not,"manage"anything.They
hire managers to do that job.
County AdministratorJohn Cullen is the chief•manager of
the county. He is the one who oversees the management of
the county."Supervisors serve on an elected board with the
responsibility of setting public policy and seeing that it is car-. .
ried out.In the past,people serving on public service.boards
used to be unpaid or get nominal stipends.Unfortunately,
that is no longer true.But that is no reason to pay elected lo-
cal officials huge salaries.It is also a gross conflict of interest
for elected board members to set their own salaries.Any in-
creases in pay should be made for future boards after the
next election.That would allow the voters to pass judgment.
If the supervisors go ahead with a 60 percent pay raise for
themselves,they may still face the judgment of the voters in
a countywide referendum,which is stere to have broad sup-
port should it reach the ballot.
Contra Costa supervisors need to take a step back and re-
consider such a massive salary increase.Smaller incremental
raises,similar to what they offered county employees, might
be more acceptable. Supervisors should seek the opinion
of their constituents on the pay issue. Perhaps they also f
could get some good advice from a county grand jury.
There is no good reason to act before receiving more out-
side input on the pay issue.
Subj: Ltr to Editor re Contra Board of Supervsiors'60% Raise-Conflict of Interest?
Date: 12/10200610:54:38 AM Pacific Standard Tirne
From: BESSTONE
To: letters0cctimes.com
CC: BESSTONE,rhuffQgg#rnes.com
Letter to Editor of Contra Costa Times
CC Times Article re Bd of Sups 6(%raise-Conflict of Interest?(vote yourself a raisc•for Xmas!)
I read Ryan Huff`s article about the Contra Costs Board of Siwcrvisois seeking a 60%raise for themselves in the Wednesday
CC Times with dismay and disbelief.I thea watched the piece of the web video,of the Bd of Sups mtg at which this was
discussed.While they might seem like reasonable people and don't want the maximum raise,just the average of the other
counties,they didn't address the obvious conflict of interest issue nor make any attempt to distanoe themselves from this
obvious and serious o mflict of interest.Several obvious ways this could be accomplished: t)Grant the raise to only to new
incoming members of the Board who never had the opportunity to.vote for their own pay raise.2)Grant the raise to
Supervisors upon their reelection(voting public would have the opportunity to voice their support for a Supervisor with a
raise)-3)As Supervisor Glover suggested,move to a formula-based approach..(My thought for a reasonable formula-based
adjustment would be 10-12%per year until parity is reached withsupervisors of other Bay,Area Counties,including Solaro.)
The article sure missed the conflict of mterestthat these Supervisors showed m supporting their large pay raise,even though
they fell all over themselves saying it was,"never a good time etc. -
It seems that this 6096 raise is being fast-tracked through the Ordinance process while•trying-to gamer the least attention
possible. This agenda item just available last Friday Dec- 8 is slated(with no 2rd read ng)for December 12th's Board of
Supervisors meeting with a proposed effective date the Ordinance of December 19th.Jhe agenda item describes this
enormous 60%raise as an ordinance.to"adjust the compensation." In my,opinion an"adjustment"might be 10%421/9,
but the proposed 60%is a major averbaul,not merely an adjustment! This increase apparently is$300,333 per year,and this
year's$100,111 "will be paid for in this year's budget with additional•revenue:".What about future years? Given the
uncertainty of funding and looming county expenses,this raise of this size should noubc,automatically extended to future
years
These Supervisors chose to save and were voted in knowing full well the pay was bad and the hours were long.If the pay
had been increased 600A earlier,then maybe somebody else Wright have run At a minimum the current Supervisors should
wait until they are reelected before accepting such an enormous pay raise.
Brian Stone(property owner in Kensington)
554 Cooper Drive
Benicia,CA 94510
Phone:.707 748-5660
Test of Agenda Item for December 12 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Meeting: .
D.2 CONSIDER introducing Ordinance No:2006-70 to adjust the compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors
and for elected County officers,waiving reading,-and fixing December 19,-2006 for adoption.(100%County cost)(John
Cullen,County Administrator)(All Districts).
Letter to Editor of Contra Costa Times }
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: M c CS- A-,/ Phone: S i rs (11-2—3
Address: f,,/J- [4-R1 City: EC-1-(,Ag 6,,,1/
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
❑ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # J • Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General [3 For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
e
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: I)Z.
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: Z- Z
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
Personal informMy comments will be: El General
ation is optional. This speaker's card will be —/
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ' 'L;o Lid' For
Name: No et 1k'Sl�t I AW Ute`L ❑ Against
tO W
l�Z 6L-U � n ,®&£ Dn,0� ❑ I wish to speak on the subject o£
Address: l I� / 'Icca
City: �"� �� L9`1 J S 3
Phone: �ZS Ci " 23C,
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself /
Eir Organization:
❑ Ido,not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #:
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: X
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. T
My comments will be: EJ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. For
El Against
Name: , )6. yk V1. KAk(ti
// El wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: 9 �� /' Z1� vvvti
City: r L�VV0 SUN
J
Phone:
I am speaking for: 11Q Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: •
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: / p
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. —T
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. C9 For
® � I ❑ Against
Name: G,'.v� d� � � 'a�
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: i (
Cit
Phone: �/� lc �- c? d-
I am speaking for: R �'Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item #:
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: ) Z t Z
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: El General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. For
Name: �d � 2/9 41 ❑ Against
/�,, ❑ .I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: �9 �-� t—h'�Q 12,)- d �T
City: 61�
Phone: l* -3`�L 7•
I am speaking foA. Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �•�
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
Address: h cl pw, City: — a
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will b ce ome a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # .PZ Date: /L
My comments will be: ❑ General 9 For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place itinthe box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: /f�l��) � / Phone:
Address: MAW City:
(Address and phone number are optional;p196se note that this card will becomea public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association wi(h this meeting)) LL �
I am speaking for myself or organization: wf'/c�.yr
CHECK ONE: y�
�I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Z y Date:
My comments will be: ❑ GeneralFor ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: �•
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. For
El Against
Name: . l�j/�I� � I � �?t'�b/�
�. I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: Jt' 5 F�1it G Z Y 0 C (� v S
City: ?/� b -� I _(_
Phone: Z S 7D d " ` J
I am speaking for: ,E Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form andplace it irihe box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 1 _ 7� Y' V Ol C Phone qD?
Address: Cit ,V\
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself Y or organization:
CHECK ONE: 9
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # '(_ Date: �}
My c mments will be: 11 General 91 For El Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: So/�c�
El I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM �' q
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: T— L6 1-5,F4 Phone: C9 tsJ 7S�/_yZ3
Address: /�(2 6 lVa0Z2/5 C P` City: 144/a�
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself _ or organization:
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # D—Z Date: /-4;VO4
My comments will be: ❑ General )KFor ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) J-
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'-rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # D , 21 Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) D o L
Corr,plete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: rI Q j'1 PhonU',
0-7 7 -Jr (� 60
Address: ( l lby, t �J�. City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Z Date:
Ct ( 01 t A , o„) My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For 1 Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on 11Agenda Item #:
Complete this,form and place it in the upright box near the Date: h b
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record
/oflthis meeting. ElFor
Name: / q e,) Against
I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address:
fUOP-Ul,r�
City: D i:�
Phone:
I am speaking for: Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item #:
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For
'' II ` ' ,1 0(Against
Name: M 11� W C\( N
\' ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: i 1 v0— CA ,
City:
Phone:
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
�?/Organization: Sri J J 5 ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
J '
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item#: , .
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For
`0 Against
.Name: '�r P��, u����
I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: 5 -4:,f c,,,n p,a I.1 G( fezrA
City: �� �5 )j(.{v=s LA �4S
—�-- )� iloo-y'd r,4 &12+191 12+191 V Is 0V _
Phone: Q
I am speaking for: t Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item#:,V4
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: ;C/ G--2- TP
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comm is will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. �L❑ For
L?"Against
Name: 'GL' f
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address:
City:
Phone:
I am speaking for: ff Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ Ido not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item#:
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: / 2- " f
speaker.°s podium, and wait to be called by the Chair:
My comments will be: 11 General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting, " ` ❑ For
"S/ Against
Name: C-e lelz a D
W p� ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
s. ,,
Address: JA
0611^�
City: .
Phone:
I am speaking for: Myself
Organization: ❑ Ido not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this fortn)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak
on Agenda Item#:
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: 7 G
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. —�—T
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For
Name:
��/��& O£ J9 Against P, 2-
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address:
City: C127 ; l4l o 7i
Phone:
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
f l Organization: -,iW1d13 X ✓.5&4
�❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
tCf�L Tod leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: D•a
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: {oZ - I a -to&
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record rof this meeting. ❑ For
rd
Name: I�rV 1Q n r Q, ���(.�liL, X Against
I wish to speak on the subject of.
Address:
City:
Phone:
I am speaking for: Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 41/a,n CSR/ \ Phone:
Address: 2s3DA(lolq D<. City: p`[ ctill �a� 2�
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE: nn
❑ . I wish to speak on Agenda Item # J Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For. Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: _ iz Z 40-f ✓ 1 5 Phone: Sd.S� �o- 5 -75
Address: C,l 0,C t t, City: C�o N C_b K
(Address and gone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself. V-1" or organization: 11 1,0 P
CHECK ONE:
DI I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Date: _,�-,C.,,
My comments will be: dGeneral ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item #: ID
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: / Z/2--/ (�
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. 1
My comments will be: LJ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For
Name: G-e-W re4 U n El Against
�u
I C� I wish to speak on the subject o£
Address: �� ��ab�-0 U�e� �
City: 0eC45"f I ( � C14
Phone: /�Z " �� -7Z,l 5
I am speaking for: d Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �•
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �I( � ra-- Phony:: Z Z,�
j
Address: �� 't 0 +Q",, nJ City: _ //I/,, h �� L
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: ✓ �G3 u L �l �
CHECK ONE: \\
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: J�
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For Wgainst
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do.not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
Information for Sneakers: In lieu of speaking, I wish to submit these comments:
I. Deposit this form into the upright box next to the lzl— 1),e-, t�f' I // ,
speaker's podium before the Board's consideration of
your item ��rs'� /f/d . / I f
2. Wait to be called by the chair. Please speak into the �� 3
microphone at the podium. � en /
3. Begin by stating your name and your city or area of
residence, and whether you are speaking for yourself or
on behalf of an organization. /J firs /� � ��� �` G' I S O
4. if you have handout materials, give them to the Clerk.
5. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the time allocated to speakers so
that all may be heard. Set
\` Wilk
ta'S L✓erYl. Y 0-f- 4-al�.s
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
• (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this
� form/and place it in the box near
�the ysppeake/rs_' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �/�2f/W/� l/j � fl�' I GS Pl �,054kPhone:
Address: 11-y'no1A, Dr✓ 5k.2-0 0 YQat�"ty:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE: \J
J I wish to speak on Agenda Item # D7— Date:
/10
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
1
December 7, 2006 C� Y �► ���2
Contra-Costa County-employees are outraged at the Board of Supervisors decision to vote
themselves a 60% raise. Supervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying they realize that this is bad timing and they realize they will take some heat for
this decision. His acknowledgement of their irresponsible decision making is no excuse
to go forward with this vote. In addition, John Cullen and the Board of Supervisors have
no idea how they will fund this wage increase, as it was not budgeted for this fiscal year.
During our negotiations last year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Board of Supervisors in the Bay
Area. In fact they used that fact as part of their negotiations to dissuade employees from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0%, 0%, 1% cost of living increase.
They repeatedly informed employees that Contra Costa County does not have the money
to make wage increases at this time based on our poor credit rating and depleted reserves.
CCC employees forfeited pay for 1 '/s days to protest their proposals and came out with a
three year contract agreement of 0%, 2%, 2% cost of living increase and a one time
$1500"bonus". During a time when we are all having to get by with less, the Board of
Supervisors must be responsible and take no more in wage increase than the employees
they represent.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our financial
health is improving. One month later the Board of Supervisors announced their decision
to increase their wages by 60%. At the same time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire staff because our neighboring counties have more to offer new employees. Our
client services have been depleted because of the lack of resources. It appears that the
Board of Supervisors are taking advantage of the slight improvement in our financial
health by choosing this time to vote themselves a 60%increase in wage. While most
employees(who are also tax payers) support the Board of Supervisors increasing their
wage, it is highly unlikely that even one employee supports a 601/o increase at this time.
If you think the Board of Supervisors should be held accountable for their irresponsible
decision to vote themselves a 60%wage increase please sign your name below. This
document will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on
December 12 h. You are encouraged to attend the meeting yourself and to tell others in
the community to attend also.
Name&Union(please print): ig2,70vre&Date:
a -.
December 7,7.006
Contra Cwste C•romty eMVIOVecx Me otttregCd At the Huard Of ti'atpervianrg dec:isitm to vote
themselves a 60%raise '%upervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying that theyrt,alixe that this is bad timing,and they realize they will take some heat
for this decision. His acknowiedgement ofthw irresponsible decision mWdng is no"
enuae to en tbrward with this vote. In addition,John Cullen and the Board of
Supervisors have no ideas how they will fund this wage increase.
Daring our ucgo6atinns lest year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Hoard of Superviwr5 in the Bay
Area. In fact they use that&ct as part of their negotiations to dissuade employw from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0%cost of living increase in 2006 and
I%or No for the following two or three years(based on the time of negotiations). They
repeatedly informed employees that Contra Costa County does not have the looney to
make wap increases at this time based on our poor,credit rating and depicted reserves.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our Snancial
health is improving. One month latnr the nourd of Supervisors announce their derision
to imease their wages by 0%, At the satire time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire Stuff because our neighboring wonties have mote to*fret new employees and our
clients are rcoeiving very poor service because ofthe isek.of resources in our progr4nis.
It appears thai ii>e Board of Supervisors are taking advantage of the slinht iniptnvcment
in out financial health by cho o-ung this time to vote themselves a 60%increase in wage
While must employees support the Board of Supervisors inrressing their wage,it is
highly emiikely that even oro employee supports a 60%ittd'esse at this time.
If year think the Board of Supervisors should Ire held socou"le for their irrespornR-Rc
decision to vett theemselves a 6n*A wage i=easa please sign your name l-winw. This
dncurtent will be presented to the Boatil of^,ur rvisors at their nextmcaring ot,
Decesuber W's You are ec„ouraged to attend the meeting yourself and to tell others in
the community to attend also.
Nance(please print). 8igrtahtrc:
VO/TO•d
kIIWHj Qui N3iQZ1NJ t :60 9002-2T-03Q
7
v_ 1:
OL n
AulAkiL
tjI
i'020'd A'IIWtl3 QNU N38a-IIHJ K:50 9002-ZI-33Q
Mko
V ..ter
.hr�s 1 Ponce _
my
tx0i£0'd :. 1.'1IWti3 QNd N-98a-1IHJ b£:60 9002-Zi-33Q
V0'd '1tl101
•,nv^j1Un V -�--J
�a pie 6 ` o-cmarr-f-
tcana Eraur�
t -
[G S_j7CA 1�11SL� JLIr
w
b0it30'd ),IIWHd QNd N36GIIH3 VZ:60 9002-2L-33Q
i
December 7, 2006
Contra Costa County employees are outraged at the Board of Supervisors decision to vote
themselves a 60 % raise. Supervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying they realize that this is bad timing and that they will take some heat for this
decision. His acknowledgement of their irresponsible decision making is no excuse to go
forward with this vote. In addition, John Cullen and the Board of Supervisors have no
ideas how they will fund this wage increase as it was not budgeted for this fiscal year.
During our negotiations last year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Board of Supervisors in the Bay
Area. In fact they used that fact as part of their negotiations to dissuade employees from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0%, 0%, 1% cost of living increase.
They repeatedly informed employees that Contra Costa County does not have the money
to make wage increases at this time based on our poor credit rating and depleted reserves.
CCC employees forfeited pay for 1 '/z days to protest their proposals and came out with a
three year contract agreement of 0%, 2%, 2% and a one time $1500 "bonus". During a
time when we are all having to get by with less, the Board of Supervisors must be
responsible and take no more in wage increases than the employees they represent.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our financial
health is improving. One month later the Board of Supervisors announced their decision
to increase their wages by 60%. At the same time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire staff because our neighboring counties have more to offer new employees. Our
client services have been depleted because of the lack of resources. It appears that the
Board of Supervisors are taking advantage of the slight improvement in our financial
health by choosing this time to vote themselves a 60% increase in wage. While most
employees (who are also tax payers) support the Board of Supervisors increasing their
wage, it is highly unlikely that even one employee supports a 60% increase at this time.
If you think the Board of Supervisors should be held accountable for their irresponsible
decision to vote themselves a 60% wage increase please sign your name below. This
document will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on
December 10. You are encouraged to attend the meeting yourself and to tell others in
the community to attend also.
Name &Union (please print): Signature:
5�-57-
e " n�"'�rh;ll S�/�L53S �7Z ecus'
Leh r� ReAOV,C� A FSC.ME a7v p
• r
__.�-- SE IU 53fS
rc� Lk
. A�s�nnG
i -4 AM-sw 9-11
Mtt-Vj 4LV, sl�f
�� S2nsrc f'l:5&RA4yD62
Pool er,
1)("y Q-L
A�t(
(ALv^
S'FIU S3�
Lli
s "
I
qty'
75-55
(k'�fi"1t l �.i 1'uv4
6` s3s $ -
TA (
lXJ r
x'35
e F L(kZO
5E 535 -
J
L-7 ��� Zc n n ire�c z Sat)
r
s3f
535 �35
N i�Y M D
a-� a v
2 B
coy ��/z Boa
706)
foo
2-7 o v
ai
-vA i 14S i 4� k
la c
0
a '
�w
W&4)
55
/S-3 SR r\
Ao
�� Z ,�,/
December 7, 2006
Contra Costa County employees are outraged at the Board of Supervisors decision to vote
themselves a 60 % raise. Supervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying they realize that this is bad timing and they realize they will take some heat for
this decision. His acknowledgement of their irresponsible decision making is no excuse
to go forward with this vote. In addition,John Cullen and the Board of Supervisors have
no ideas how they will fund this wage increase as it was not budgeted for this fiscal year.
During our negotiations last year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Board of Supervisors in the Bay
Area. In fact they used that fact as part of their negotiations to dissuade employees from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0%, 0%, 1% cost of living increase.
They repeatedly informed employees that Contra Costa County does not have the money
to make wage increases at this time based on our poor credit rating and depleted reserves.
CCC employees forfeited pay for 1 '/z days to protest their proposals and came out with a
three year contract agreement of 0%, 2%, 2% and a one time $1500 "bonus". During a
time when we are all having to get by with less, the Board of Supervisors must be
responsible and take no more in wage increase than the employees they represent.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our financial
health is improving. One month later the Board of Supervisors announced their decision
to increase their wages by 60%. At the same time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire staff because our neighboring counties have more to offer new employees. Our
client services have been depleted because of the lack of resources. It appears that the
Board of Supervisors are taking advantage.of the slight improvement in our financial
health by choosing this time to vote themselves a 60% increase in wage. While most
employees (who are also tax payers) support the Board of Supervisors increasing their
wage, it is highly unlikely that even one employee supports a 601/o increase at this time.
If you think the Board of Supervisors should be held accountable for their irresponsible
decision to vote themselves a 60%wage increase please sign your name below. This
document will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on
December 12th.
Name & Union (please print): Signature/Date:
IV
i
;we-
Print Name& Union: Signature/Date:
I
uan h 4kr��a� Locs Sl— le�.�. i a S Xcet,
5 535 Z��c�°6
sir u
ANN Rq cS MZ—Lo 535
7
3 EiU S3�
5:515 Z/OW106
�(ulc fade, s��� 535 A�eO� u4 — 121q/Oy
(0 ( iii e� spetW"6 i N �75mcz
rs
CaA-0 �i34
Print Name&Union: Signature/Date:
e i l�h lN�e�tn ie�n `��s a JAI D b
(11_e v;ti,
o (2-
V
r
J� nit 1 �
V-01
� -
Print Name& Union: Signature/Date:
��1 535 fir''
lel (-k- cC,2�G
M�ll+e IJazar�o-Gia ,., l,ccrarsaS JzV e4
I�RCk a V 2j
n . /�/06
��. �r1R. /tel l
I
�or Gv
Gt Ile S�n s
Print Name& Union: i nature/Date:
yer�ah
10 CL
U S
ALftl��f
lion
�oca� 2706
5 dery
r Ir
�� vNSn� � Ylil�v� n a
Print Name& Union: Signature/Date:
117
(,0(,zA o V,-�
L) n 1/-\
hC SMS
[10 (k
G
-2--70c) 4f 1>100
Y94
DEC-08-2006 16:57 CFS ANTIOCH 9255227575 P.02i05
December 71 2006
Contra Costa County employees are outraged at the Board of Supervisors decision to vote
themselves a 60%raise. Supervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying they realize that this is bad timing and they realize they will take some heat for
this decision. His acknowledgement of their irresponsible decision making is no excuse
to go forward with this vote. In addition,John Cullen and the Board of Supervisors have
no ideas how they will fund this wage increase s it was not budgeted for this fiscal year.
During our negotiations last year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Board of Supervisors in the Bay
Area. In fact they used that fact as part of their negotiations to dissuade employees from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0'/o, 0%, 1%cost of living increase.
They repeatedly informed.employees that Contra Costa County does not have the money
to make wage increases at this time based on our poor credit rating and depleted reserves.
CCC employees forfeited pay for 1 �/:days to protest their proposals and came out with a
three year contract agreement of 0°/a,2%, 211/6 and a one time$1500"bonus". During a
tie when we are all having to get by with less,the Board of Supervisors must be
responsible and take no more in wage increase than the employees they represent.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our financial
health is improving. One month later the Board of Supervisors announced their decision
to increase their wages by 600/c. At the same time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire staff because our neighboring counties have more to offer new employees. Our
client services have been depleted because of the lack of resources. It appears that the
Board of Supervisors are taking advantage of the slight improvement in our financial
health by choosing this time to vote themselves a 60%increase in wage. While most
employees(who are also tax payers)support the Board of Supervisors increasing their
wage, it is highly unlikely that even one employee supports a 60%increase at this time.
If you think the Board of Supervisors should be held accountable for their irresponsible
decision to vote themselves a 60%wage increase please sign your name below. This
document will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on
December 10. You are encouraged to attend the meeting yourself and to tell others in
the community to attend also.
Name(please print): Signature:
v �
Ly r
RUC-14 L 16
DEC-08-2006 16:58 CFS ANTIOCH 9255227575 P.03i05
Y-Zr\%
oo p
s-Cle4
Lisa, L6�--lru5
MQ/7;(AAL Mad ri aef
u
p `ar W F re-rt
w
Vev"ei,7—
jk�
aL
ate.
DEC-08-2006 16:58 CFS ANTIOCH 9255227575 P.04i05
� tA
DEC-08-2006 16:58 CFS ANTIOCH 9255227575 P.05r05
Print Name&Union: SignaturvDate:
' r
Hec
1�}oc _
TOTAL P.05
December 7, 2006
Contra Costa County employees are outraged at the Board of Supervisors decision to vote
themselves a 60 % raise. Supervisor Glover was quoted in the Contra Costa Times as
saying they realize that this is bad timing and they realize they will take some heat for
this decision. His acknowledgement of their irresponsible decision making is no excuse
to go forward with this vote. In addition, John Cullen and the Board of Supervisors have
no ideas how they will fund this wage increaseos it was not budgeted for this fiscal year.
During our negotiations last year the Board of Supervisors repeatedly reminded Contra
Costa County employees that they are the lowest paid Board of Supervisors in the Bay
Area. In fact they used that fact as part of their negotiations to dissuade employees from
protesting their proposal to give CCC employees a 0%, 0%, 1% cost of living increase.
They repeatedly informed employees that Contra Costa County does not have the money
to make wage increases at this time based on our poor credit rating and depleted reserves.
CCC employees forfeited pay for 1 '/z days to protest their proposals and came out with a
three year contract agreement of 0%, 2%, 2% and a one time $1500 "bonus". During a
_VQc,Q., *ewhen we are all having to get by with less, the Board of Supervisors must be
responsible and take no more in wage increase than the employees they represent.
Last month John Cullen sent an email out to all employees informing us that our financial
health is improving. One month later the Board of Supervisors announced their decision
to increase their wages by 60%. At the same time CCC is losing the ability to retain and
hire staff because our neighboring counties have more to offer new employees. Our
client services have been depleted because of the lack of resources. It appears that the
Board of Supervisors are taking advantage of the slight improvement in our financial
health by choosing this time to vote themselves a 60% increase in wage. While most
employees (who are also tax payers) support the Board of Supervisors increasing their
wage, it is highly unlikely that even one employee supports a 60% increase at this time.
If you think the Board of Supervisors should be held accountable for their irresponsible
decision to vote themselves a 60%wage increase please sign your name below. This
document will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on
December 140. You are encouraged to attend the meeting yourself and to tell others in
the community to attend also.
ame (please print): ign ure/Dam
r(12- �E�N (��t bif cZ Cl(7L
' �RA7H 5-I FA 12,/7)0
b
f
Print Naive& Union: Signature/Date:
6'e.-ilerk a4