Raises and Bonuses After Asking Voters for a Tax Increase
Updated: Aug 18
On June 2, Contra Costa County voters rejected Measure B, a proposed 0.625% sales tax.
Just over a month later, on July 7, the Board of Supervisors approved compensation increases for County employees.
That timing deserves scrutiny.
What the Board approved
The July 7 material in my records shows the Board approving labor agreements that included salary increases and one-time lump-sum payments. The post I originally wrote described a 3% increase and payments of $500 for part-time employees and $1,000 for full-time employees.
A separate resolution covered specified management, exempt, unrepresented and elected classifications.
Raises are not automatically wrong
County employees do important work, and compensation has to remain competitive. A raise or negotiated labor agreement is not, by itself, evidence of mismanagement.
But context matters.
Only weeks earlier, residents had been told the County's financial situation was serious enough to justify increasing the sales tax. That makes it reasonable for taxpayers to ask how new compensation commitments fit into the financial picture they had just been shown.
Campaign contributions also deserve transparency
Campaign-finance material included with my records shows that labor organizations contributed substantial amounts to the campaign supporting Measure B.
Again, a campaign contribution does not prove that a later government decision was made in exchange for that contribution.
But the overlap makes transparency especially important. Residents should be able to see who funded the campaign, which labor agreements were approved, what those agreements cost and how those costs fit into the County's broader budget.
The standard should be simple
If taxpayers are being asked to pay more, County leaders should be prepared to show them where the money is going.
That means presenting compensation, project spending, reserves and projected deficits in a way an ordinary resident can understand without searching through dozens of agenda attachments.
That is the kind of transparency I have been asking for throughout this recall effort.
Sources
