Voter Guide 2004: Measure E: Setting salaries for county supervisors Voter Guide 2004: Measure E: Setting salaries for county supervisors (October 13, 2004)

By Marion Softky
Almanac Staff Writer

Should voters change the law with regard to how salaries for members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are set?

This is the issue Measure E poses on the November 2 ballot.

Under current law, the board can set a supervisor's salary, but any increase -- other than for cost of living -- cannot take effect during the current term of any supervisor.

Under Measure E, supervisors could ask the grand jury to investigate the need for a pay increase and make a recommendation. The board could accept or reject the recommendation, but could not set a salary higher than that recommended by the grand jury.

The five supervisors, who each make approximately $79,000 a year with annual cost-of-living increases, oversee a budget of $1.3 billion. In the past, they have encountered strenuous opposition when they tried to raise their salaries.

Proponents argue that the grand jury can offer fair and impartial advice because it is appointed by the Superior Court and therefore independent of the Board of Supervisors. Signing the ballot argument are supervisors Mike Nevin, Jerry Hill and Mark Church; Sheriff Don Horsley, and Tax-Collector-Treasurer Lee Buffington.

Opposing Measure E, retired Belmont City Clerk Jim McLaughlin argues this duty would give an extra burden to the grand jury and that pay increases should be decided by a vote of the people.

County Measures B, C, and D would amend the county charter in technical ways. They have no opposition statements on the sample ballot.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.