Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThe county will be eliminating the ability of elected officials to cash out on vacation accrual. Since 2007, elected officials — though they don’t technically take vacations — have been able to accrue up to 80 hours a year in vacation and cash those hours out. Additionally, managers — who haven’t had a pay raise since January 2008 — and unrepresented employees in the county are losing an $80 biweekly employee offset the county used to pay. CEO Chandra Wallar’s contract with the county was also amended to mirror that cut in pay.
County to Disallow Elected Officials to Rack Up Vacation Hours
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Previous Month
Comments
Excellent decision. Who can we thank for this ray of sunshine?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree! Good decision. I can't rack up my vacation as a private citizen, why shoud they? Enough with public employees getting much sweeter deals than the private sectoor that PAYS THE BILL!
SanityNow (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Despite the usual desire to bash on government employees and act jealous, the point here is that an elected official has no direct supervisor and thus no need to schedule vacation time. County Supervisors and City Council members just work as hard or as little as they desire, and take time off as desired, so the concept of "vacation" is moot.
Therefore, paid vacation hours for County Supervisors is really just a boost in salary above their near $90K a year they already are paid.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Logic 3 times prevails on a level that is oftentimes illogical? What? This is the 3rd of the 7 signs? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sure the only reason this Board would give this back is that is was probably going to be released as a media story and they chose this path before the papers addressed it first. How about the next step being the Supervisors pay their full contribution of 8% for their retirement program? Salud is sitting on over $500K in his "reelection" account and Janet has a nice little nest egg as well. Step up folks, or is cowardnice a more familiar realm for you?
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And what does the "reelection account" have to do with the salary as a county Supervisor? Nothing unless you are suggesting they act illegally and shift election committee funds into personal uses.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams brings up a good point: what are the rules regarding money raised for a campaign and left over; is it the candidate's money to spend as he wishes or must it remain in an election fund (and what if there is no additional election?)
at_large (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a legal point on the observations by John Adams and At large. If you set up an office in your home, regardless of the size, you can write off the residence entirely off of campaign funds since you "do official business" out of that location. Salud made a career before election as an aide ($50 k a year) and a supervisors salary is about 80K. Yet, he lives in a very nice sized home in Montecito. I don't think his wife is a trust fund baby either.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)