By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party
As California is faced with constant deficits and battles over whether to raise taxes or cut services, one glaring fact that keeps being overlooked is the high salaries of our state workforce. An article in the San Francisco (hardly a right-wing propaganda source), using data from democrat State Controller John Chiang lists details of some of the highest paid.
According to the article, more than 500 state workers make over $240,000 annually, and we even have 9 workers making over $500,000.
You can read the article here.
I would remind readers that California voters have reduced the salaries of state workers before. We currently pay our state legislators less than $100,000 in the Assembly and less than $120,000 in the Senate. Our Governor is paid about $200,000 annually to govern the entire state. So why are some people who manage smaller agencies being paid more than the governor?
I would also ask the question, how much of our tax dollars actually goes to the services we supposedly demand, and how much just goes to salaries? I believe the Salvation Army claims that about 70% of money given to them goes to the actual recipients of their charity. Does 70% of the tax money I pay into welfare actually go to welfare recipients? Or does it pay for some bureaucrat’s expensive condo in the bay area?
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed made almost $400,000 in base pay in 2010 (not counting perks). How much lower could tuitions be if the CSU system wasn’t paying so much out to the upper echelons?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Rather than raise taxes on rich people in California, why don’t we just lower their state salaries?
And why, oh why, do the people making these salaries tend to support the political party this is driving out the businesses that make their lavish lifestyles possible? The gravy train won’t last if you kill off the train industry and the gravy producers. Or do they simply suscribe to that old socialist dogma that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?
This is so wrong on so many levels – we’ve got to get democrats out of office.
“Or do they simply suscribe to that old socialist dogma that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?”
Both…they also believe that revenue flows from an unlimited magical supply, that nothing special has to be done to create wealth, and that they have a right to confiscate every penny they can squeeze from the “common well”.
Where were these entitled citizens educated? Oh yeah….right!
Oh…terrific illustration!
Steve, Afraid the problem is even bigger than just our state. Take a look at the below video that shows Obama after saying he was freezing the White House staff salaries and the chart showing the pay raises many of them received.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYPO2V6sClI&feature=player_embedded
The blame belongs to the leaders, be they in the WH or a member of a school board. Just because someone wants a salary is no justification it be granted. The president of my college wanted a $25k a year pay raise to be equal to the college president down the road. Her pay raise resulted in our sister college president, the vice chancellor and the chancellor also getting the $25k pay raise each. Those four salaries came to $100k increase a year. The presidents salary went from $100k to $125, the vice chancellor from $150k to $175k, and the chancellor to $200k. This all took place back in the late 1990s, and our school board approved it all.
Also need to know no salary raises were granted to teachers or support staff. In fact twelve support staff jobs were proposed to be cut to pay for the one college presidents raise. Since Ed Code requires proof of lack of work or lack of funds before a classified job can be eliminated the twelve staffs jobs were saved, but the money had to come from cuts some place else.
The current chancellors salary of my former employer is now earning, according to media reports, a wage in the $500k range. Not long ago there was a local story of the Yuba Community College Chancellor also receiving the $500k salary. All it takes is one to get it and the rest will demand the same.
I fault those in charge for allowing the problem to reach the magnitude it has reached. School boards, city councils, etc. need to say, No and every salary in the public sector needs to be reevaluated and appropriate adjustments made.
One final point I want to clarify. While I support private sector pay to be whatever the market will support, I do not support the govt thinking it has the right to define who is rich and to set a tax on the rich to support those that pay no taxes. People need to understand where the funds come from to support these salaries. One from the work they do and the other from the work others do.
Peggy your insight from personal experience is incredibly valuable to our discussions…thank you!
I’ve been certain for a long time that education money is not getting to the classroom and teachers where it is most needed but instead is being siphoned off to unnecessary/ego driven bureacratic positions.
Didn’t mean to omit the name of my former employer, San Jose/Evergreen Community College Dist. so any one with the necessary computer skills can validate my statements. The name of the SJCC president in the 1990s was Del Anderson. Media coverage last year on the chancellor’s salary and expenditures appeared in the San Jose Mercury News and ABC Channel 7 News.
I’m so confused!
And, I have misplaced my moral compass.
Help me out.
I seem to recall that “personal responsibility” is a big deal with the TEApublicans, as is sticking to your word.
But that was last week.
Maybe it’s changed.
Are you telling now us that a person who has risen to the top based on his/her abilities, merits, and personal responsibility should have their salary reviewed by some sort of oversight committee???????????
Are you saying we need to EXPAND government to do this? (It would be the only way)
Are you know telling us that keeping your word is no longer an important value to you guys?
I’m willing to bet you guys would get the slightest bit of respect–and a ‘red’ Butte County if you would just exercise the TINIEST shred of moral consistency!
Quentin, Since you apparently have never held a job that requires an evaluation before a raise is given let me fill you in on one of the major components. Its called salary comparison review and it means like jobs by title and related duties are done within a geographic area. Ours was done for the colleges in the bay area. When we negotiated our salaries we would get the salaries for the other colleges and if they got a raise wed ask for the equal or better.
We usually got a 1-3% raise if we got anything at all. If the lowest paid position got a raise the salaries for the management went up automatically by the same percentage. But, if the top management got a pay raise no adjustments were made to the lower salaries. So, a $25k a year clerk or secretary pay raise of 1-3% did not come even close to the same increase for a $200k salary.
Repeat this every year for over ten years, add in top management salary increase demands and it explains how salaries for top management increased by 400-500%.
Oh yeah, one more thing. All of these top positions have an extra perk of a personal expense accounts with credit cards. If my memory is correct our chancellors account was in the $20k range. Look it up if you want, its public funds and, therefore, should be available. I know it was disclosed by the Mercury News and ABC last year.
Quentin – Are you telling now us that a person who has risen to the top based on his/her abilities, merits, and personal responsibility should have their salary reviewed by some sort of oversight committee???????????
Yes, I am. Its done by the districts HR staff all of the time or at least every three years when the whole contract is negotiated, or when a Salary Alignment Study is done, at no additional cost. Plus, there is the state’s Office of Education located in Sacramento. There job is to oversee educational compliance per Ed Code. Im sure there is existing staff there to do a review. All of the information is already there or easily available.
The same could be done for EVERY state public sector salary and should be done.
You sound jealous, Peggy. If you had studied harder, you might have succeeded as well as the successful people. It sounds like you want to punish others because you feel punished. The end result of collective bargaining, and the opposite of individual achievement.
I’m sorry for you, ma’am.
Quentin, You are so pathetic, the only way you feel equal is to attack others just to bring yourself up to their level.
You asked me a question and I tried to explain it to you since you lacked the grey matter to comprehend what I was saying. So, for the LAST time try reading between the lines to grasp what is written. If that doesnt work find someone else to explain it to you, go study a 5th grade primer and take an Econ. for Dummies class title; Duh, 2+2 Does Add Up To 4.
I gave you the details of the process for our state educational system to use as an example for what most likely happens with the rest of our public sector salaries. I even provided you with names of resources to verify what I said, but instead of taking the time to educate yourself you did your typical stupid response.
I do not and never have begrudged the legitimate salaries of anyone, be they public or private. But, there is something very wrong when public sector jobs all over the state increase by 100-500% during the same time private sector salaries declined, by cuts just to hold unto a job, or positions are eliminated to continue to pay for these very high salaries. Word last week from my friends still working there say over 30 classified staff are being laid off right now.
Since the states budget is in such a mess serious action needs to take place, and I think most parents would rather have their tax dollars go to pay for ten instructional class aids instead of one supervisor/chancellor.
I beg yer pardon? Whose party’s candidate signed the eight budgets before this last? And signed off on a prison psychiatrist at $800k? (Shuuuuuddder.)
Mind you. The State Supreme Court says we’ve got to have at least one, and, apparently, you couldn’t get anybody to do it for less.
Messed up.
A very nice and informative post. I really love to read and explore about California politics and I just subscribed to your post and hope you will be putting lots of readable stuff on political aspects of California. Thanks
Thank you Plumbing. California and local politics is something I try to focus on more than national. It’s where we can make a bigger difference.
As for our democrat friends, it is HILARIOUS to watch you guys squirm when your extravagant spending is revealed publicly. Both of you know that this kind of spending detracts from those who can least afford it. By supporting this you are advocating that we subsidize rich fat cat government workers on the backs of the poor! Oh the humanity! Your hypocrisy is fun to watch though, so I’ll keep posting more.
Here is the latest pay raise for a CSU president. Expect the rest to follow.
=========
Sacramento Bee
July 12, 2011
CSU approves $400K salary for San Diego State president
California State University trustees today approved a salary for the new San Diego State president that is $100,000 higher than his predecessor’s — despite receiving a letter this morning from Gov. Jerry Brown telling the board that its “approach to compensation is setting a pattern for public service that we cannot afford.”
Trustees voted 12-3, with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Margaret Fortune and Steve Glazer voting against the compensation package for Elliot Hirshman, who began earlier this month as the president of San Diego State. The package called for a salary of $400,000, with $50,000 of it paid for with private funds from the university’s foundation.
Hirshman’s predecessor, Stephen Weber, earned an annual salary of $299,435 at the end of his 14-year tenure at the helm of San Diego State.
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/07/california-state-university-san-diego-state-elliot-hirshman.html#ixzz1RwyZmk3W
$400k a year, 25% increase? Wow.
Well, if he buys his groceries on sale, avoids expensive meats and watches his energy bill…I suppose he can survive on that.
Sorry, couldn’t help but be sarcastic. That’s such an insult to pay these liberal dolts with their overinflated egos that kind of money. There’s plenty of good people out here who could do that job and for a heck of a lot less. They should put those jobs up for a competitive bid and see what kind of candidates apply. I bet we could get some great talent for less than $200k a year.
Did you read the article? Gavin Newsome and other democrats voted against it too. There may be hope if more of them come to realize we can’t afford this level of salaries no matter who they are or know.
But, with the WH setting the example for supper high public payed salaries I’m sure there will be others that will try because of their sense of entitlement.