The board on Tuesday was asked to give Taylor an 8.6% promotional salary for an annual income of $157,434, effective Jan. 23.
The raise was on top of a 25% increase CEO Chandra Wallar approved that brought Taylor’s former wage as deputy chief probation officer from $115,975 to $144,969, well below the average department head salary and the market for the job.
Taylor, who replaced former Chief Probation Officer Patti Stewart and was appointed on Dec. 22 by Presiding Judge Arthur Garcia of the Santa Barbara Juvenile Court, oversees the Probation Department’s $42 million budget and 315 employees.
The guidelines of the county’s Leadership Project, which spells out salary plans for unrepresented executive and management employees, make Taylor’s appointment a promotion rather than a hire. County staff noted that the 8.6% increase would put Taylor’s salary 4% below the average earnings of $164,000 for chief probation officers across multiple jurisdictions.
But the increase sparked outrage from county employees represented by Service Employees International Union Local 721, who took to the steps of the Santa Barbara County Administration building to oppose the raise.
“We believe in working for a fair wage, but handing out a steep raise after members had their salaries slashed is, at the very best, bad timing,” Local 721 spokesman Jesse Luna told the Journal. “And giving the board the ability to hand out a 25% increase to management is a slap in the face to our members who have been imposed salary cuts, plus 40-hours of furlough time.”
Although board members said Taylor was an excellent choice for the position, some had concerns about the resolution that would have allowed the board to give salary-on-promotion increases under the Leadership Project in excess of 25%.
First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, who voted against the resolution, said he could not back the raise as it was recommended.
“This doesn’t make sense,” he said. “Are we concerned about pension costs or not?”
The discussion zeroed in on pensions during discussion of Taylor’s potential retirement benefit. Pension payouts are calculated by multiplying a small percentage of an employee’s final salary by the number of years he or she worked. Taylor, who can retire in three years, has worked for the county for 30 years, but her pension payout will be based on the salary that wasn’t based on pension contributions over that time.
“Doing the simple math, this could give us at least a half-million to $1 million shortfall,” 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said. “I don’t know how we’d deal with something like that. It’s inherent in the system, and I think when we were talking about a maximum payout for pensions, we’re talking about putting a strain on our system 10 to 15 years down the road on a decision that we’re going to make today.”
Carbajal was content with keeping Taylor’s salary at $144,969, the maximum amount Wallar could increase under the Leadership Project.
Andy Caldwell, executive director the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, lamented that retirement benefits are based on a formula that uses a final year’s salary. Instead, he proposed incremental, pro-rated increases to pension plans so that the payout would be based on their salaries and the number of years they worked in different positions.
“That’s the way good reasonable math would dictate compensation,” Carbajal said. But he noted that the systemic change to pension calculations would require state legislation –legislation he said the board should encourage.
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr called for a more robust staff report justifying the salary increase and the management resolution and “more in-depth analysis County Council has given for calling this a promotion and not an appointment.” Ultimately, at the request of 4th District Supervisor Joni Gray, the board voted to bypass the Leadership Project resolution and approve Taylor’s salary. Carbajal voted no and Lavagnino abstained, saying he wanted the item to return for more discussion.
“We’re glad the board ended up striking a portion of the resolution that would have included the Leadership Project portion,” Luna told the Journal after the hearing. “That may be the way large corporations run things, but this is our street, not Wall Street.”
Shortly before the vote, an exasperated Carbajal called the move a “loophole” that did not address concerns raised by board members and the public about retirement benefits. “I was hoping we could come back and have a more robust discussion, but with this motion, I’m not going down that road.”
Second District Supervisor Janet Wolf said she was concerned about “folks getting incredible raises in the executive area that were unsustainable” but added that the elephant in the room was the Leadership Project.
“I hate to use this issue as a scapegoat for retirement,” she said. “I think it would be insulting to a public safety officer working with the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney, and is in charge of the entire probation department, for us not to move forward with this raise that’s not even comparable to those other department heads. It’s unconscionable.”