STORYLINE Sacramento County Budget Crisis

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

County managers protest suggested budget cut

by Kathleen Haley, published on September 11, 2009 at 6:56PM

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

Sacramento County managers are strongly opposing a suggestion from Sacramento County Supervisor Don Nottoli to cut a benefit that helps employees save money for retirement. A representative from the Sacramento County Management Association (SCMA) told the Board of Supervisors on Friday that managers are making sacrifices to assist the county, and are not being treated fairly.

“We keep hearing by public comment that managers need to take more cuts,” said Sue Elliott, acting president of SCMA. “Yet, we feel we have done our part.”

Elliott made her remarks during the board’s fourth day of final budget hearings. The most recently updated figure for the county’s budget deficit is $68 million. Unions are vehemently protesting the the county’s plan to lay off 350 employees. In addition to the layoffs, the board has said it plans to cut 16 hours per month from the workload of county employees who are represented by unions.

The county's final decisions are expected on Sept. 16.

Elliott told the board that managers’ concessions include furlough days and the elimination of a cost-of-living pay increase. The 2.9 percent cost-of-living raise for managers was cut for the 2009/2010 fiscal year, she said.

Nottoli suggested Thursday that the board consider cutting the deferred compensation benefit for managers. Elliott said the benefit costs about $1.1 million annually, with $335,000 coming out of the general fund.

Elliott said that managers were being treated unfairly by the board, noting that employees represented by the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and the Sacramento County Probation Association maintained their cost-of-living increases. She acknowledged that sheriff’s deputies and probation employees “put their lives on the line,” but contended there is unequal treatment among employee groups.

Elliott made her remarks the day after the executive director of United Public Employees Local 1 said the county was cutting rank-and-file workers while keeping jobs for officials. “You’re too top-heavy,” Ted Somera said in comments to the board. “You have too many chiefs.”

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

September 11, 2009 | 09:14 PM
It seems strange that in an economic recession and the highest unemployment rate in three decades someone managed to get a cost of living wage increase! The cosy of living has shrunk in the past 18 months.
0 0
REPLY
September 14, 2009 | 06:19 PM
I am proud that Susan Elliott stood up to this board and actually told the truth. The Sacramento County Management Association has been before the board several times the past few month, and its interesting the BOS hasn't listened to one of the things they have stated... like equality among the workgroups, represented and unrepresented. What few benefits managers have, that are different than represented employees, isn't unlike some of the other benefits managers don't receive such as educational level salary bumps of 5%, longivity of service 5% and 10% depending on the years of service. Managers receive none of this. Managers have 1% match by the County to a 401a retirement account as long as the manager contributes 1% of her/his salary towards the 401a account. Anything beyond 1% is not matched. Unlike the educational and logivity pay percentages that increase overall yearly salaries for represented employees, and positively effect their retirement accounts in the future, the 401a is but a small step established a couple of years ago to provide managers with a benefit... not a perk... but a benefit that helps managers save money for retirement when they don't receive the same benefits as represented employees. This county pits is own employees against each other, and I swear the BOS must love the inequality they provide to employees across the board... its keeps all county employees eating their own. Managers and supervisors, supervisors and managers, supervisors and line staff, line staff and supervisors, and the list goes on. As long as inequality in pay and benefits there will be strife. Inequality breeds this type of discontent, just as women's pay and a man's pay for the same job are often different... it breeeds discontent and rightful speak of inequality. For those who complain of county or governement beneifts, both pay and retirement, and "perks", may I remind you, they work for an employer who represents the taxpayers of the County of Sacramento, which I am one. I would like to suggest to the BOS to look at making benefits equal for all, instead of having two differing or multiple differing benefit packages for the various work groups or represented and uprepresented employee groups of the County. As a government employee I believe those outside governement are wrong to state that are benefits, retirement, etc. are outlandish and ridiculous in comparison to those in the private sector. You chose the private sector, which can and does give bonuses, job pay increases, cars, perks, etc. for its managers... that does not happen for the majority of Sacramento County's managers, except perhaps the top 12 with a car allowance. We don't get bonuses, are pay scale is public knowledge, and our retirement is NOTHING to scream "inequality" about. We don't get medical care in retirement unlike some in the private sector, or at least some type of subsidy.... we may have the OPTION of retiring at 55.5 years old, but who can do that if you don't get medical care until you are social security age? The County will now and always continue to harm itself by offering retirement at 55.5 without medical, as employees will stay until they can reach social security age for medical coverage, thus increaseing their retirement percentage. If the county figured it out, they would better off offering minimal group medical coverage and allowing empoyees to retire att 55.5 with 2% for each year of service, rather than having someone retire at 65 with 2.6% for each year of service. It only makes fiscal sense... but then again, when has the BOS actually thought fiscally about anything.
0 0
REPLY
September 15, 2009 | 07:30 PM
I enjoyed reading your comments. I think you have some missing data on private sector matters, but its not your fault if you are not working in it, you may not know it.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
TYPE YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW
EDIT YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW cancel edit

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Forgot Password?
New Users Create an Account Here
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com