.
Chandra – will we get her? Or have we scared her away?
Late Tuesday afternoon the Orange County Board of Supervisors finished a lengthy discussion at the Supervisors’ public meeting on whether to hire Santa Barbara CEO Chandra Wallar to fill Orange County’s vacant CEO position. The position became vacant after Tom Mauk was forced out of the job after an almost 9-year run.
The reasons for Mauk’s departure last year are not totally clear, but are at least partly attributed to the sexually charged atmosphere that was found to exist in the County Public Works Department. That situation resulted in the termination of the Public Works Director last year, and the arrest and pending prosecution of an Assistant Public Works Director. Some veteran county employees also believe that a reason for Mauk’s departure was that the Supervisors themselves are a very difficult, and behind the scenes often divided, governing body to work for.
At today’s meeting of the Supervisors that division became quite apparent, though the group remained cordial with each other – at least in public. The discussion which went on for about an hour afforded each Supervisor the opportunity to expound on their views about executive compensation, retirement and other benefits, double-dipping, severance packages, and other hot button issues. At one point Supervisor Nguyen correctly pointed out that a couple of the constraints being advocated by Board members in the discussion were not in sync with the recruitment announcement for the CEO job. Specifically, that the sentiment expressed by some Board members that no one who is currently drawing a public sector pension would be considered because they are double dippers and that’s bad, and that the announcement said the salary was open but Board members today were saying they did not want to pay more than the departed CEO Tom Mauk was making (a salary of approx. $ 256,000/yr.)
Finally, a straw vote was taken on Ms. Wallar, without addressing pay. The Board voted 5-0 that she was the preferred candidate. But, when it came time to deal with the compensation package requested by Ms. Wallar the Board was all over the map, and in the end indecisive. The two-member committee that had been appointed to handle the CEO recruitment, Supervisors Nguyen and Bates, were informally told to go back to Ms. Wallar to further discuss compensation and other considerations such as a relocation allowance, annual vacation buyout, pension cost contribution, and other factors. This even though Supervisor Spitzer said he had a discussion with Ms. Wallar over the weekend and that she made it clear that if the Supervisors only offered Mauk’s previous salary there would be no deal and that she wanted closure this week, one way or the other.
It was stated that the Supervisors will not meet again for three weeks. Given Ms. Wallar’s alleged statement that she wants closure now, not later, it would seem that the Supervisors have most likely lost their top candidate.
So much for executive leadership from the Board of Supervisors. Political philosophies interjected into a previously approved recruitment process have muddied the waters of the months-long CEO recruitment process. Will these same issues be raised with the selection of a Clerk-Recorder (particularly that no candidate who is drawing a public sector retirement will be considered) or Auditor-Controller or Public Guardian/Administrator?
As the unwillingness of the Board of Supervisors to recognize the dynamics of the labor market and willingness to interject political philosophies into the recruitment and selection of candidates for key executive level positions becomes more widely known by public discussion as occurred today at the Supervisors meeting, how many qualified, capable and eager candidates are out there who want to work for a Board like this?
Perhaps the field of applicants is being whittled down to political cronies right before our eyes. Could that be the real agenda?
Prediction: she’ll withdraw, they’ll get flustered and regret losing her, and they’ll end up paying more for her than they would have originally.
OBNO asks, “Will these same issues be raised with the selection of a Clerk-Recorder (particularly that no candidate who is drawing a public sector retirement will be considered)…?”
Yes, that is and was being raised as an issue for clerk-recorder candidates, by Nelson and Moorlach. But it won’t have much effect. As me and a couple of county employees looked through the list, we think it might only disqualify Larry Bales.
Not, as I had hoped, Ackerman or Norby. As I learned, our state legislators gave up their pensions back in 1990. Duh. I hope I’m not the only person who didn’t know that.
Vern, I would think Norby would have a teachers pension coming in, boosted by his years and 6 figure earnings as a County Supervisor. That would be a public sector retirement, and if he is indeed drawing such a pension then taking a pubilc sector job would make him a double dipper. Worth trying to find out.
Uhhh, wasn’t Norby a Supervisor? Or did people used to call him “Supervisor Norby” ironically?
You guys are right – maybe that pension stricture DOES nix Norby! Good – Ackerman and Ramirez down for their misdeeds, Norby down for his pension, should leave Hieu and Peotter as the top contenders!
And then all you cynics with your “the fix is in” can stop feeling so smart!
i thought somebody on the inside said norby or nguyen a couple of weeks ago
Y U listen 2 jailbirds, willie?
the entertainment value?
Surely, of all people, you can afford better.
but it helps me stay connected to the peoples
Don’t make fun of willie, fly.
Your only considered a double-dipper if you are currently COLLECTING a retirement and working for another government agency. I do not think Norby is currently collecting a retirement from the County, nor would a current County employee.
Is this term actually defined somewhere? Is there an Economic Libertarian Ideologues Political Dictionary or something?
Its really a lot older and more common term (and concern) than that.
Yeah — and I don’t think it’s defined quite so finely as suggested above.
The broadest definition I have heard, and the one I think is the best, is that a double dipper is anyone who has retired from a public sector job and then works for pay in another public sector job. This can be with the same employer or not. So, if Mr. Norby is a retired public school teacher drawing a teacher’s retirement check and is seeking a public sector paying job, he is seeking to become a double dipper in my book. The question is – is he drawing a public sector pension now or not? I do not know.
I don’t know. He’s 63.
My guess is that what he’s seeking to become is employed.
Since you seem to know, OBNO, what’s the comparison in terms of total pension between someone spending 20 years as a teacher, 8 years as a Supe, and 8 years as a Clerk-Recorder vs. spending 36 years as a teacher or 36 years as a City Manager or something, where one would be “single-dipping.” I can easily imagine that double-dipping (or multiple dipping beyond that) gives one more — but how much more? Is this as big a problem as self-negotiated buyouts?
Public sector pensions are usually based on years of service, age at retirement, and the highest 1 or 3 year average of salary when working. It would be logical that if Mr. Norby retired now, or has recently, and if there is a reciprocal agreement between the teacher’s pension fund (CalSTRS) and the county retirement fund (OCERS), his retirement income would be basecd on the total of years he worked as a teacher and a county supervisor combined, plus his highest 1 year or 3 years average salary. I would guess his highest 1 or 3 years average salary would be when he was paid more than 6 figures as a Supervisor.
This is only a guess on my part, but I would not be surprised if he is now drawwing, or could draw if he filed for retirement, a 6 figure retirement check if the two retirement systems have a reciprocal agreement, thus being in the so-called $100,000 club.. If he worked more years and earnied a higher income and of course got older, his retirement pay could increase.
The big question is – is he drawing retirement, and if so is any of that coming from the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) – the system for county employees? If he is drawing any OCERS retirement and became a county employee again, it would be messy as OCERS rules do not allow a retiree to work for the county again on a full time basis.
This would all require legal analysis, which is why there is a County Counsel as well as legal staff for OCERS. I am not an attorney and offer only the general views above as what might be.
I would add that I think this double dippoing issue is making a mountain out of a molehill and that a retired person desiring to take a job with a willing employer should have the right to be considered for the job.