County Issue / Officials’ Retirements :...

John V. Gillespie, Retiring Ventura County sheriff

I feel that the golden handshake is a tool to be used as a cost-saving measure in dire economic times. In March, the director of the Probation Department took a golden handshake, setting the precedent for department heads. The only difference between me and the director of probation is that he was appointed and I was elected. It would be unfair not to treat us equitably and the same. We’re all contributing to the same retirement system. I think there’s been some slanted reporting regarding golden handshakes. If the headline would say, “County to Save a Million Dollars” instead of “Sheriff to Receive $170,000 Bonus,” it would have been positive and accurate. If you look at any position with the responsibility of a $70-million budget and 1,000 employees, I’m not sure any of this is inappropriate. I’m police chief of five cities, but the compensation package is the same for the police chief of Oxnard, who I think is appropriately paid.

*

Hal Pittman, Ventura County treasurer-tax collector

The ordinance that was written by the supervisors was all-inclusive. They were surprised that two elected officials took advantage of the offer. But there was nothing illegal about it. The controversy concerning elected officials has come about because of the public’s perception that it is wrong and because elected officials serve at the will of the people. Because of this perception, they should not give golden handshakes to elected officials in the future. At this time, the local government does not need there to be a perception on the public’s part that we’re doing something wrong. But in the two recent cases they did meet the criteria that was set forth by the Board of Supervisors. Speaking as an elected official, I just don’t think public officials should do this. As long as I am able to serve, I would serve my term. My feeling is that a public perception of wrongdoing is as bad as the real thing. That’s justification in itself that we shouldn’t do it in the future. However, it does not change my opinion that the golden handshake is an excellent management tool in certain circumstances.

*

Ronald W. Komers, Ventura County personnel director

Both of the two elected officials in the county that have opted for the golden handshake are long-term county employees. They are in the retirement system that’s the same for all employees. With both Gillespie and Hawkes, their retirement, including the golden handshake, is less than what they would be entitled to if they had worked to the end of their term. The elected officials in question haven’t had a pay increase since 1990 so the normal incentive to put in more years and earn a higher retirement no longer exists. That plays on whether someone thinks it’s worth it to put in more time. The auditor and the sheriff are not primarily political positions. Their essence is not political, it’s managerial. That argues for treating them more like employees than political officials. The bottom line in any early retirement program is saving money. Early retirement saves money by facilitating downsizing, consolidation of functions and deletions of positions. In the Gillespie and Hawkes cases, those conditions were met.

*

Maria VanderKolk, Ventura County supervisor

When I voted in favor of pursuing the program last year, it was with the understanding that it would be for retired people who wouldn’t be replaced. It would be a permanent reduction in the work force to save the county money. I have a real problem with elected officials taking advantage of the golden handshake. You are elected by the people to do a job. The lesson we learned this year is full disclosure, which seems at odds with retiring in the middle of the term. I’m not saying that it’s wrong for either of them to retire. But to retire and take advantage of this program doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I can’t imagine a board member announcing that they are going to retire midway through their term, putting the county on its collective ear and then taking the golden handshake. What’s done is done, but I don’t ever intend to allow it to happen again.

*

Daniel Martinez, Oxnard city clerk

I feel the golden handshake has to be weighed very carefully. Whatever is best for the public interest is the first consideration and also being fair to all the other public employees. I know a lot of times these golden handshakes aren’t open to all the employees. A lot of people who decide to retire don’t get the opportunities of this kind of benefits. I think a lot would depend on how much money it was. Maybe if it was a little bit people would say they worked there for a long time and deserve it. It’s something that will have to be weighed in the tight economic climate that counties and cities are in right now. Maybe they should change the name. It’s not like they’re trying to reduce the work force. Traditionally, it’s been used if it’s a position that you will do away with or (if it will) reduce your work force.