Officials Oppose Proposed Raises for 4 Prosecutors

Several Orange County supervisors said Monday they are opposed to giving large pay raises to four of Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi’s top prosecutors--three of whom are involved in the civil cases against two supervisors for their roles in the county’s bankruptcy.

The raises--which range from 11% to 16.75%--were tentatively approved before the county’s 1994 bankruptcy, but had to be canceled because of the county’s poor financial condition. The county’s recovery plan, which is expected to be approved in two weeks, reinstates the pay increases.

Several supervisors, however, oppose the raises, saying they are too generous and should be scaled back. They plan to review them in a closed session next Tuesday.

“I’m not opposed to paying market wages for good managers. We need to be competitive with the private sector to keep good people,” said Supervisor Don Saltarelli. “But we need to be cautious. . . . Those raises are too high for me to support at this time.”

The proposed pay increases were made public Friday during a court hearing in which Supervisors William G. Steiner and Roger R. Stanton and Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis tried to have Capizzi disqualified from prosecuting their misconduct cases because of alleged conflicts of interest.

Three of the four attorneys who are supposed to receive the raises--Jan Nolan, Wallace J. Wade and Brent Romney--are directly involved in prosecuting the misconduct cases against the three officials. The fourth attorney scheduled for a raise is John Conley.

Under the raise proposal, Romney and Nolan would have their base salaries of $99,944 increased to $116,688. Wade’s salary would increase from $102,294 to $116,688 and Conley’s from $104,998 to $116,688.

Attorneys for Steiner, Stanton and Lewis said the canceled pay raises are one of the many examples of conflicts that should disqualify the local district attorney’s office from handling their cases.

*

The defense attorneys contend that the loss of income by the three prosecutors handling their clients’ cases might have influenced the decision to charge the supervisors and the county auditor.

Prosecutors deny they have any conflicts that would warrant their recusal. A ruling on the issue is expected this week.

Capizzi said the salaries were negotiated 15 months ago with the county’s administrative staff and were determined to be “appropriate and justified,” based on the attorneys’ workload and classifications. He said he is “confident that the county will honor its contractual obligations as it has committed to do.”

Saltarelli said he was troubled by the “political” implications of the situation.

“It looks really bad to me that people who were to receive pay raises decided to prosecute supervisors,” Saltarelli said.

Stanton agreed.

“When somebody is promised a 17% raise and doesn’t get it, I think they tend to lose their objectivity. I don’t intend to lose mine,” he said, referring to his review of the proposed raises.

Stanton, however, said he has “doubts” whether such increases are appropriate.

“I think there are managers in the county deserving of adjustments to make their pay more equitable, but those adjustments certainly don’t go to the heights of nearly 17%,” he added.

Stanton said his review of the proposed raises will be based on what is good public policy and not on any attempt to retaliate against the district attorney’s office.

Steiner also said he didn’t feel the raises should be approved at their current levels.

“I don’t think that these huge raises can be justified when other county employees have had to make so many sacrifices over the past two years,” he said.

Although pay raises for most employees were frozen after the bankruptcy, they ultimately received a 2.5% pay increase. The raises for the four prosecutors were negotiated between Capizzi and a committee formed by former County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider. Stanton and Steiner were unaware of the proposed raises until Friday.

Supervisor Marian Bergeson said many questions remain about whether the board should--or could--cut the prosecutors’ raises.

She noted that raises might be part of a legally binding agreement with the prosecutors that the county has no choice but to honor.

Moreover, the county needs to determine whether the salaries are competitive with what private-sector lawyers with similar responsibilities receive, Bergeson said.

The county is now in the process of conducting a study comparing public wages and benefits with those offered by private businesses. Bergeson said the wide-ranging study could help determine whether the prosecutors’ raises are appropriate.

Once the study is complete, “I think then we can take a good look at whether the salaries are competitive,” she said.

Supervisor Jim Silva declined to comment.

Times correspondent Shelby Grad contributed to this report.