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?

The only thing more astounding than the apparently limitless greed of our so-called public servants is the fact that so many voters elect to shovel more money in their direction.

Joseph - look at Snyder in Michigan!

Signing a law to prevent workers from collective bargaining, including most but not all public workers, but he excludes cops and firefighters, the very most expensive public workers!

Just because they cops and firefighters in Michigan vote and donate Republican doesn't seem like a very good reason to exclude them from the new law!

Unless it's all about the politics, not any perceived economic benefit.

With this very public statement of excess county funds, I look forward to the cut in country tax rates ...

... but I'm not holding my breath.

Snyder's Folly -

"Signing a law to prevent workers from collective bargaining..."

Really? Where in the world did you get that?

What did Michigan's right to work law have to do with collective bargaining? The law provides that an employee cannot be made to join the union as a requirement of a job.

How does that "prevent workers from collective bargaining?" or did you just get those talking points from your union boss?

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.

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?

Disgusting!

Shame on the supervisors and shame on those who support them.

I'm afraid to know how much the retirement package for a 300k public "servant" is worth, if I had to buy an annuity for the amount. I'm sure it's multiple millions.

The next time that the supervisors want a tax measure approved for 'schools and other essential services...' we should all simply vote NO.

Completely irresponsible spending.

While I doubt the Supervisors care what the electorate thinks, here is a link to their page: Web Link for anyone who wants to voice his/her opinion.

Shame on them and those who support this kind of spending.

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.

9 weeks of vacation alongside a $300,000 salary. Cushy. I wounder why not one of the elected voted against this? Did anyone on the Board even ask pointed questions about why this is necessary?

The video on the County website doesn't work at this time. From what was reported there was no comment from any of the Supervisors.

> 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.

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.

This is the contact information for the supervisors:

Dave Pine, 1st District
650-363-4571
dpine@smcgov.org

Carole Groom, 2nd District
650-363-4568
cgroom@smcgov.org

Don Horsley, 3rd District
650-363-4569
dhorsley@smcgov.org

Rose Jacobs Gibson, 4th District
650-363-4570
RoseJG@smcgov.org

Adrienne Tissier, 5th District
650-363-4572
ATissier@smcgov.org

I agree with Peter. Vote no on any addition requests for tax increases. I know i will not vote for any. What a sham

SteveC:

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.