Metro, San Jose

9/4/03

Scary Secrets

How the county misled the public about how much it paid its managers. And how Metro's legal challenge got them to release the information it's required by law to share. Well some of it, anyway.

By Najeeb Hasan

SANTA CLARA County officials are going to great lengths to keep the public from knowing just how much they are paying the county's top bureaucrats. Metro has waged a five-month battle to obtain the true salaries, while county brass has been busy using every trick in the book to thwart the disclosure, from legal maneuvers and claims of confidentiality to stalling and providing misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information.

Last February, Metro reported ( "County's Bounty," Feb. 13) on the annual salary increases of Santa Clara County's top managers, pay hikes that were doled out in the middle of a budget crisis that forced the county to reduce service levels to the public. And while the pain will be felt in poor neighborhoods where low-wage workers will have to wait longer at bus stops, the county government's managerial elite was spared the sting of tough economic times.

During a Board of Supervisors meeting last December, the county approved a $1.2 million across-the-board pay increase for its executive management and board-appointed positions, at around the same time unions were asked to think about salary freezes and workforce reductions.

However, in listing last December's salary increases for the county's top executive brass--raises that were granted with little public deliberation--the county's website mostly understated the compensation. The county provided numbers for 90 senior employees that were more than $1 million a year under what they actually make ( see chart below ). The county, it has been learned, posts estimates rather than actual salaries to its public website. For example, in February Metro listed Registrar of Voters Jesse Durazo's salary as $128,964, using the estimates on the website. However, Durazo's actual salary is almost $17,000 higher at $145,924.

When asked to provide clear compensation information--such as the amounts recorded in the year-to-date box on the W-2 forms of its most highly compensated employees--the county dragged its feet, raised legal defenses and then refused to turn over the data. To get the information, Metro had to retain counsel and spend five months wrangling with the county's taxpayer-paid attorneys over a simple request for the kind of data that most government agencies routinely furnish to the media. Despite a plea to County Counsel Ann Ravel (salary $213, 746), lawyers in her office withheld the information from the public during a critical period that included wage negotiations, program cuts, passage of the county's $3 billion budget and the hiring of a new county executive.

When the county finally released a few scraps of information, the figures showed that county big shots are collecting a lot more than what the government agency represents in the salary estimates posted to the county's own website: www.sccgov.org.

The salary tables posted on the website show figures discussed during a Dec. 10 Board of Supervisors meeting and purport that the salary ranges of the county's top 171 managers would increase by 5 percent and that there would be additional adjustments due to "compaction, market comparisons and internal alignment." These salaries, it turns out, are salary ranges or midpoint salaries, not actual salaries. The actual salaries, which are not listed, can be up to 12.5 percent higher or lower than what are called "midpoint" salaries found in the official salary table on the website.

The actual 2003 salaries for the county managers were, in several cases, $5,000 to $10,000 and sometimes $20,000 higher than the information Metro originally took from the county's website in February.

With the actual salaries significantly higher than the midpoint salaries in many cases, the $1.2 million annual impact (derived from the salaries listed on the table, not from the actual salaries) of the county raises appears also, at best, a very rough estimate.

It's hard to tell whether the extraordinary efforts the county is taking to conceal the information are due to the fact that it wants to hide the facts--or that it really doesn't know just how much it's paying its top people.

"What we do is that we take an approximation, and that is the only way that we could determine [costs] until everybody's salary is submitted," says Leode Franklin, a deputy executive for the county. "[Then] it's up to the departments to manage the difference, and it isn't a huge difference. Most departments manage it pretty well."

Misleading Data

In a letter to Santa Clara County, dated Feb. 24, 2003, about 10 days after the publication of "County's Bounty," following a tip that some county insiders were snickering over the fact that salaries were higher than what the newspaper had published, Metro requested that the county provide accurate year-to-date salaries for the 118 management positions listed in the story.

The following day, Metro broadened its request to include compensation figures for all people paid at least $80,000 by the county (as of presstime, the county has refused to provide that second piece of information).

Three days later, the county responded that it did not maintain that kind of "specific information" and that year-to-date figures would not provide an accurate representation of salaries because they would include miscellaneous compensation such as sick leave, mileage and vacation.

The county sent salary figures for 2002. After receiving the limited information, Metro , on March 6, again requested complete compensation figures for 2003 (including any salary, bonuses, overtime and other forms of compensation) from the county for its top managers. Twenty-one days later, the county responded with only vehicle-allowance information for the employees.

On May 30, Metro's attorney, Duffy Carolan, again requested full compensation figures. Finally, on July 8, the county responded with the 2003 actual salaries; however, the county would only tell Metro which employees received performance bonuses up to 5 percent of their base salary but not the amount of the bonuses, citing that they were based on "confidential review." The county has still refused to provide accurate bonus information.

Why the month-long lag time between the attorney's letter and the county's response?

"Well," says Deputy County Counsel David Kahn, who sounds surprised by the question, "why did it take so long to reply? Oh, I think the best I can tell you is that Duffy [Carolan] and I were having a number of conversations about the legal issues during the time period. She was involved with other issues; I was involved with other issues. We both made an effort to get it resolved as quickly as possible. Just due to the crunch of other county commitments and I think other commitments that she had, that was when it came out."

Carolan, Metro's attorney, acknowledges that once attorneys are involved, a longer lag time is not unusual, but she says the issue about her involvement obfuscates the fact that county took too long to respond to the public records request in the first place.

"They [the county] were delinquent in responding before I ever got involved," Duffy says. "They weren't under any time constraints once they issued the denial. Where they failed to meet requirements was in the front end, when they failed to respond to the public-records request in a timely manner. They didn't respond in a timely manner, as they are required to do under the law."

As for the 20 days between the March 6 request and the March 27 reply, Kahn says telephone conversations with the Metro on March 7 and 14 allowed the county to wait that amount of time before providing any information. Franklin, meanwhile, cited other factors that complicated the information request, including the issue of the performance bonuses.

"It doesn't matter if we don't understand," Carolan says. "They still have an obligation to respond in 10 days. If your request is in writing, then they have to respond in writing--that's the law."

Deficit Mode

In February, Franklin told Metro that the December raises were a result of any of the following: market comparisons, rewards for individual performance, compaction (when the salaries of subordinates get too close to the salaries of the managers) and internal adjustments.

And while Franklin now says that while the county was cognizant of the region's fiscal situation, the above factors still had to be considered. "It was certainly part of the board's deliberation," Franklin says. "We knew we were running toward a deficit mode for this current fiscal year, and the board deliberated on this very thoughtfully."

Franklin goes on to explain that the county's website lists inaccurate salary amounts because the ordinance employed for the estimation provides only midpoint salaries--actual salaries could be anywhere within a 25 percent range for specific positions.

As a result, Metro reported in February that Assistant County Counsel Debra Cauble's 2003 salary was $173,079; her actual 2003 salary, Metro found out earlier this month, was $195,850, or $22,771 higher than the salary listed on the midpoint salary ordinance, a 13.2 percent improvement over the midpoint salary.

To take another example, Mary Solseng, the assistant assessor, had her salary listed as $118,498 in February. Her actual salary turned out to be $106,211, or $12,287 less, a 10.4 percent decrease from the midpoint salary.

The vast majority of the 2003 actual salaries for the employees surveyed, however, are significantly above the midpoint number. For instance, nine of the 15 listed employees in the office of the county executive had salaries above the midpoint level; five out the seven listed employees in the Department of Corrections had salaries above the midpoint level; and all nine listed employees in the Employee Services Agency had salaries above the midpoint level.

"You will find very few salaries below the midpoint," agrees Franklin. She adds that seniority and recruitment are factors in pushing salaries up. Other factors that push them up are the annual performance evaluations and subsequent raises. "It does not necessarily mean pay increases for everybody," Franklin continues. "But the requirements are such that ... you can go no higher than the top of the range. So even if you performed at a superstar level and did some incredible performances that merit ... [a higher raise, you don't get it]."

A month ago, in a move that Franklin says was due to the current fiscal shortfalls, Acting County Executive Peter Kutras announced that those same county managers who saw raises last December would not be seeing raises in this coming year. "Given the fiscal circumstances that all the public sector is in, including the county where we're struggling with a budget deficit, Mr. Kutras felt that it was appropriate for the leadership of the group to recognize that and not take any [new] salary increases," Franklin says. "Times are tight; we need to be sensitive and follow the pattern." The managers won't be eligible for raises again until December of 2004.

Others, though, believe that Kutras' decision, rather than showing leadership, was following the leadership of the lower-paid county workers, who gave up pay increases to save jobs.

"We actually gave some of our pay back," says Gabriel Hernandez, a work-site director for Local 715, which represents about half of the 16,000 county workers. "That's the responsible thing to do to keep services happening. I think they followed suit because we did. I think it's the smart thing to do; it's the practical thing to do."

Franklin, of course, does not agree, saying Kutras would have announced the decision whether or not the labor groups had deferred on their pay increases. "I believe he's the type of leader who needs to set the tone and send the message from the top," she says.

The Big 90

Ninety heavy hitters whose salaries were underreported by the County of Santa Clara, to the tune of $1 million.

Name
Title
2002 Midpoint Salary
2003 Actual Salary
Discrepancy

Gerald Neary
Deputy Chief Probation Officer
$106,211
$124,548
$18,337

Peter Kutras Jr.
Assistant County Executive
176,565
199,797
23,232

John Guthrie
Director, Finance Agency
165,479
187,252
21,773

Paula Kuty **
Chief Asst. District Attorney
186,524
211,064
24,540

Debra Cauble**
Assistant County Counsel
173,079
195,850
22,771

Karyn Sinunu**
Assistant District Attorney
173,079
195,850
22,771

John Cavalli
Chief Probation Officer
138,285
156,477
18,192

Will Lightbourne
Director, Social Services Agency
152,029
172,027
19,998

Jesse Durazo
Registrar of Voters
128,964
145,924
16,960

Robert Bravo
Correctional Captain
112,740
127,559
14,819

Edward Flores
Assistant Chief of Correction
124,548
140,918
16,370

Dueane Williams
GSA Communications Director
112,740
127,558
14,818

Naomi Tsururnoto
Director of Sheriff's Admin. Services
122,701
138,828
16,127

Nancy Fowler
Manager, Property Management Div.
106,211
120,159
13,948

Brenda Davis
County Clerk/Recorder
103,682
117,204
13,522

Benny Del Re
Director of the Crime Laboratory
101,152
114,324
13,172

John Lernes
Chief Internal Auditor
101,152
114,324
13,172

Jim Sadtler
Chief Accounting Manager
93,554
105,727
12,173

Robert Easley
Chief Appraiser
96,807
109,399
12,592

Virginia Harnley
Chief Auditor-Appraiser
96,807
109,399
12,592

Hector Garza
Administrator of Benefit Services
99,715
112,629
12,914

Onita Spake
Chief Fiscal Officer
113,304
127,977
14,673

Janet Moody
Director, Risk Management
111,623
125,881
14,258

Alice Wheatley
Administrative Services Manager
98,232
110,762
12,530

Chau Trinh
Administrative Services Manager
98,232
110,762
12,530

Sheila Mohan *
Financial and Admin. Services Manager
98,232
110,762
12,530

Rhonda Armstrong
Assessor's Off. Admin. Serv. Manager
91,329
102,910
11,581

Diana Hunter
Adminstrative Services Manager
91,329
102,910
11,581

Herb Wiley
Investment Officer
100,200
112,902
12,702

Pat Love
Special Projects Director
111,623
125,212
13,589

Gregory Schmunk
Chief Medical Examiner/Coroner
166,306
186,524
20,218

Laurie Faulkner **
Assistant County Counsel
173,079
194,116
21,037

Gary Aslanian
Director, Information Systems
111,623
124,548
12,925

Steve Black
Manager, Building Operations
102,644
114,437
11,793

Susan Levenberg**
Assistant County Counsel
173,079
192,190
19,111

Alvin Weger**
Assistant District Attorney
173,079
192,190
19,111

Cheryl Johnson
Tax Collector
116,740
129,609
12,869

Gay Strand
Administrative Services Manager
98,232
108,880
10,648

Maria Dupras
Director, Equal Opp. and Empl Devlpt.
111,623
123,315
11,692

Joanne Cox
Human Resources Oper. Manager
98,232
108,339
10,107

Grant Armstrong**
Assistant Public Defender
173,079
190,283
17,204

Dave Elledge
Controller/Treasurer
125,170
137,596
12,426

Alette Lundeberg
Administrator of Benefit Services
99,715
109,423
9,708

George Rixman
Fiscal Services Manager
113,870
124,548
10,678

Rita Hamilton
Director of Procurement
115,584
126,422
10,838

Michael Murdter
Dir., Roads and Airport Department
144,633
157,431
12,798

Norma Doctor-Sparks
Dir., Family and Children Services
119,683
129,609
9,926

Jonathon Wolin
Administrative Services Manager
106,211
115,009
8,798

Ken Phillips
Labor Relations Manager
98,232
106,211
7,979

Karen Rixman
Admin., Exec. Recruitment Services
90,440
97,756
7,316

Leode Franklin
Deputy County Executive
165,479
178,335
12,856

Kevin Carruth
Dir. of General Services Agency
153,552
165,479
11,927

Dorothy Smith*
Director of Information Systems
116,160
125,170
9,010

Cliff O'Connor
Chief Deputy Director, Social Services
125,794
135,533
9,739

Christine Sorensen Baucus
Chief Administrative Officer
105,211
113,304
8,093

Phyllis Perez-Sorensen
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
123,853
133,271
9,418

Robert Cecil
Public Administrator/Guardian
99,715
107,266
7,551

Marc Buller**
Assistant District Attorney
173,079
185,596
12,517

Thomas Fahrenholz**
Assistant District Attorney
173,079
185,596
12,517

Lesha Luu
Controller - Treasurer Div. Manager
93,554
100,200
6,646

Ann Sloan
Chief Deputy - Clerk of the Board
90,440
96,807
6,367

David Mann**
Chief Asst. Public Defender
186,524
199,019
12,495

William Larsen**
Assistant District Attorney
173,079
184,673
11,594

Dennis Bacon*
Commander
122,701
130,907
8,206

Ken Borelli
Asst. Director, Family and Children
104,701
111,623
6,922

Wendy Beadle
Tax Apportionment Manager
86,555
92,196
5,641

Jose Villarreal**
Public Defender
199,047
211,935
12,888

Gary Graves
Deputy County Executive
165,479
175,687
10,208

Ronald Norman**
Assistant Public Defender
173,079
183,753
10,674

Darrel Starnbaugh*
Commander
122,701
130,256
7,555

Betty Malks
Director, Adult and Aging Services
108,880
115,584
6,704

Zonia Beecher-Waldon
Asst. Director, Family and Children
104,701
111,070
6,369

Anthony Arata
Adminstrative Services Manager
98,232
104,189
5,957

Gwendolyn Mitchell
Public Communication Director
116,740
122,701
5,961

Vinod Sharma
Controller - Treasurer Div. Manager
93,554
98,232
4,678

Gina Alcomendras
Assistant County Clerk/Recorder
89,563
94,041
4,478

Thomas Brewer
Chief Investigator
120,881
126,422
5,541

Jeffrey Davis
Admin., Meas. B Improvement Prog.
106,211
111,070
4,859

Ken Rado
Manager, Capital Programs
117,322
122,092
4,770

Terry Gitlin
Director, Emergency Preparedness
94,041
97,756
3,715

Peter Dever
Director, Dept. of Child Support Services
173,079
179,227
6,148

Leslie Crowell
Budget Manager
117,322
121,484
4,162

Thelma Zuniga
Manager, Workers' Comp. Division
92,196
95,428
3,232

Ernest Smedlund
Captain
112,740
116,160
3,420

Joseph Kirby*
Captain
112,740
116,160
3,420

Alayne Bolster
Chief Public Defender Investigator
107,266
110,519
3,253

David Gottlieb
Correctional Captain
112,740
115,584
2,844

Sandra Padget-Miles
Correctional Captain
112,740
115,584
2,844

Kathy Duque*
Deputy Chief Probation Officer
106,211
108,339
2,128

Doug Southard*
Children's Shelter Director
104,701
105,748
1,047

Total Discrepancy
$1,006,303

Editor's Note: These salary amounts are approximations based on biweekly salary information provided by the county and rounded to the nearest dollar. Source: County of Santa Clara

*Denotes officials who did not receive compensation from Santa Clara County last year in that position.

**These attorney salaries include a 9.5 percent increase given in September and a 5 percent bump in December.