Supes OK 11% raise for county manager Around Town, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Dec 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm
As of Dec. 23, John Maltbie, the interim county manager for San Mateo County government since November 2011, will take over as the permanent manager, with an immediate 11 percent raise over what the position previously paid.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, December 12, 2012, 11:11 AM
Posted by janet, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm
This is utterly disgusting, especially given how screwed up the County was during his tenure. The county cries "poor mouth" every time some item of infrastructure is falling apart, yet continues to dole out taxpayers' money to its employees. At the same meeting they were going to approve an ADDITIONAL $50 million for health benefits for already retired employees. Where do you think Prop. A funds are going?
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Dec 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Pogo, I know your question to Snyder's Folly was rehtorical, of course the talking points came from the union. Another question I would ask--perhaps of the Almanac--what do those comments have to do with the subject of this thread? I live in SM County, could care less about what people in Michigan elect to do or not do. With regard to this package, I'm not so upset with the $300K salary (big job), as I am with the benefits and severance package. Basically if this guy turns out to be a bust, it will cost $300K plus accrued vacation to get rid of him--and I'll bet he doesn't even have a good fast ball. Our sups live on a planet of which I am unfamilair.
Posted by Downtowner, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2012 at 2:37 pm
This is just wrong! Has Maltbie done such a great job that he deserves a big raise? Plus a huge severance package? He can lease a very luxe car for $1000 month, too. Was there a quid-pro-quo so that outgoing supes get more benes?
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2012 at 7:08 am
Unfortunately, Measure A passed by misleading voters!
The good news is that Measure B passed, so there is a great opportunity to elect new people to the board of supervisors, who are not in the "good old boys' network." I hope voters take advantage of this new system and vote out the supervisors they don't feel represent them.
The other good news is that Measure C failed, so that means voters will continue to have a say in who will be the two county financial executives. Maybe, they should be voted out, too, in the next election cycle.
Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
> I wounder why not one of the elected voted against this?
The answer is quite simple. They are not spending their own money, and government officials have very low accountability compared to private sector businesses which have to compete for customers on a day to day basis.
Posted by Scholar, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm
They all voted for it, because as one goes so they all go as to salary and benefits by the decision. They and their families all progress financially eventually by this vote because it raises the bar in general for all. They can also be expected to stand firm.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2012 at 6:59 pm
given the past practice of the supervisors vis a vi spending the tax payers money, why would the tax payers vote for a tax increase? Becasue they're unconcious, disconected idiots, that pay no attention to what is going on in their county. And the county supes know it. (Portion removed.) Until the voters in this county wake up and stop voting the politically connected into office this will never stop. As Einstien said, "The universe and human stupidity are infinite, and I'm not sure about the universe.