San Bernardino County supervisors' proposed measure would overturn $60,000 annual salary cap

A proposed measure that would overturn a voter-approved, $60,000-per-year salary cap for San Bernardino County supervisors will be considered for final adoption next week.

The Board of Supervisors approved the measure during a July 26 meeting and will decide whether to adopt it as written Tuesday and place it on the November ballot.

In addition to lifting the salary cap, the yet-unnamed measure would amend the county charter and set a limit of three total terms for a supervisor and mandate a salary equal to 80% of that of a Superior Court judge.

State payroll data shows the highest paid judge in the San Bernardino Superior Court earned $239,134 in 2021.

The proposal is largely the same on paper as Measure J, which was placed on the ballot by supervisors in 2020 and passed by a slim majority.

However, that same year, voters approved Measure K, which capped the salaries of supervisors and limited them to one term. Measure K has been tied up in the courts ever since. 

But the new measure that supervisors are now putting forth does have a key difference from 2020's Measure J: Under the new proposed measure, any proposed tax increase placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors for voter approval must pass with a four-fifths vote of the supervisors, instead of the current three-fifths vote.

At the July 26 meeting, Supervisor Dawn Rowe asked county counsel Tom Bunton whether any other county elected board had the same requirement for tax increases.

“I’m not aware of any,” he said.

Measure K still in court

The supervisors’ decision to place a new measure on the ballot concerning their salary and term limits comes as the legality of Measure K — which voters approved by a 2-to-1 margin in 2020 — is still being decided in the courts.

Measure K placed a lifetime one-term limit on supervisors and set a $60,000 annual salary.

Measure K has never been enacted because the board sued to block it and argued the measure “was unconstitutional, legally invalid, and/or unenforceable,” according to an Aug. 31, 2021, court ruling.

That day, Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez ruled in the county’s favor and found while voters could legally decide on how much a supervisor gets paid, a one-term limit violated the Constitution and made the entirety of Measure K invalid.

Last month, a state appeals court issued a tentative opinion that found Measure K was constitutional and that term and compensation limits were legally valid.

Both the county and the proponents of Measure K have been invited to participate in oral arguments before the court makes its final decision. A hearing has yet to be scheduled.

If the appeals court rules in favor of Measure K, Measure J — which currently governs supervisors’ term limits and compensation but received fewer votes in 2020 — would be overturned.

Several people at the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 26 spoke in support of the new measure proposed by the supervisors. A majority were either past or current elected officials or representatives for organizations.

Former Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales suggested a county leader engenders trust by being able to serve more than one term and gains experience.

“We bring who we are from home, but ultimately we become strong, honest leaders based on the repeated opportunity of the voter to give us their vote,” she said. “That can only happen through this charter amendment.”

Current Fifth District Supervisor Joe Baca Jr. called a one-term limit “bad policy." He said he had at least seven pages of projects he was working on that would likely take longer than four years.

“I probably will not be able to complete them in one term,” Baca said.

For Supervisor and Board Chair Curt Hagman, more years served means more experience, which is a benefit to residents.

“I don’t understand necessarily why you'd want someone without experience to run a multi-billion dollar government entity of your tax dollars," he said.

'Offering voters a sham'

Others were not so supportive of the measure that would revise the county charter.

Tom Murphy is president of the Red Brennan Group, the nonprofit that gathered the signatures to place Measure K on the ballot.

In a written analysis of the board’s new measure, he said supervisors “by presenting this proposed charter amendment, are offering voters a sham.”

“Purporting to lead on Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform, in reality the supervisors’ amendment is nothing but a crass attempt to remain in office for as long as possible while getting paid as much as possible,” he wrote.

A section he found issue with was the one regarding term limits. In Section 204, it states that for supervisors who serve in the first, third and fifth districts, “any term or portion of a term served prior to noon on Monday, January 6, 2025, shall not count toward the term limit.”

For supervisors in the second and fourth districts, any term served prior to noon on Monday, Jan. 2, 2023, would not count.

Murphy wrote this would allow supervisors to technically serve beyond just three terms totaling 12 years.

He also criticized a section that states if voters approve a future measure that concerns supervisor terms or compensation “in a way that conflicts with the treatment of these subjects in this measure” then the four-fifths requirement for a tax increase would be repealed.

“Voters should understand this section exactly for what it is — a threat,” Murphy wrote. “Essentially, the board is communicating to voters, ‘leave our pay and term limits alone, or we will repeal the supposed tax protection offered in this charter amendment.’”

When asked for comment about the Red Brennan Group’s analysis, county spokesperson David Wert said in an email Wednesday: “It would not be appropriate for County staff to comment or offer analysis on a proposal that has not yet been adopted" by the board.

“At this point, the Board has only approved introduction of the charter amendment ordinance,” he added. “The Board is not scheduled to consider adoption of the ordinance until Aug. 9, and the Board could modify the ordinance before considering adoption.

To see the approved measure and related documents, click here.

Daily Press reporter Martin Estacio may be reached at 760-955-5358 or MEstacio@VVDailyPress.com. Follow him on Twitter @DP_mestacio.

This article originally appeared on Victorville Daily Press: County supervisors' proposed measure would overturn $60k a year salary cap