Mauk’s Selective Reasoning: Only his managers should get raises

Tom Mauk

Norberto Santana, Jr. over at Voice of OC reportsthat County CEO Tom Mauk and the Orange County Attorneys’ Association are having a bit of a dust up over their deferred raises that Mauk ordered not be included in the 2010-2011 county budget approved last month.

CEO Tom Mauk decried the vote for raises, saying it flew in the face of every recent headline regarding the economy or budget cuts at public agencies. Asking for a pay raise amidst sagging sales and property tax revenues, looming state cuts and a weak economy is inappropriate, Mauk said.

“They are contractually entitled to the raise; we asked them not to take it; they took it anyway,” Mauk said.

Larry Yellin, a deputy district attorney who is president of the Orange County Attorneys’ Association, said Mauk’s statements show that he and other county leaders are not interested in bargaining in good faith.

“I get a feeling from the CEO’s office, not the DA, that he wants to go to war,” Yellin said. “This is politics, not economics. This could have been worked out.”

Yellin said there were past assurances that the raise deferral wouldn’t be permanent. And the deputy DAs have gone through a round of layoffs and furloughs.

Last year however Tom Mauk was singing a different tune. From our story on August 4, 2009:

The Orange County Manager’s Association and County negotiators (also managers)  agreed to formalize their agreement to postpone their scheduled pay increases, but not give them up all together. Looks like Tom Mauk was only blustering when he was touting for the last 8 months that Managers had given up their raises.

In the agreement the managers get a one year extension of their contract with their original raises in tact, only delayed to this fiscal year and next.

Mauk signed off on this deal last year. That deal however benefited his managers and for that reason, and apparently that reason alone, they did not fly in the face of headlines regarding the economy or budget cuts at public agencies.

If I am not mistaken, we have here a text book example of selective reasoning and selective outrage.

UPDATE: 

In September 2009 the MOU for managers was revised and extended to January 3, 2011. That agreement provided for the managers to receive the 2% raise that had been deferred from January 2009 to become effective on October 9, 2009. Their 2.5% raise scheduled for January 2010, was deferred to October 8, 2010. Their 3% raise scheduled for 2009 was “eliminated due to the County’s fiscal hardship.”

The Attorneys also negotiated an extension of their contract as well and agreed to defer their negotiated raise of 3.5% due on June 19, 2009 until June 18, 2010. The deferred raises were to take effect in June 2010 unless both parties agreed to to defer or eliminate the scheduled raise.

It should be noted that as of October of this year CEO Mauk’s managers will have received a 4.5% raise. The Attorneys will have received none. It should also ne noted that the employees represented by OCEA (the vast majority of county employees) did not receive any raises in the 2009-10 fiscal year, and will not for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

  1 comment for “Mauk’s Selective Reasoning: Only his managers should get raises

  1. July 8, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    In September 2009 the MOU for managers was revised and extended to January 3, 2011. That agreement provided for the managers to receive the 2% raise that had been deferred from January 2009 to become effective on October 9, 2009. Their 2.5% raise scheduled for January 2010, was deferred to October 8, 2010. Their 3% raise scheduled for 2009 was “eliminated due to the County’s fiscal hardship.”

    The Attorneys also negotiated an extension of their contract as well and agreed to defer their negotiated raise of 3.5% due on June 19, 2009 until June 18, 2010. The deferred raises were to take effect in June 2010 unless both parties agreed to to defer or eliminate the scheduled raise.

    It should be noted that as of October of this year CEO Mauk’s managers will have received a 4.5% raise. The Attorneys will have received none. It should also ne noted that the employees represented by OCEA (the vast majority of county employees) did not receive any raises in the 2009-10 fiscal year, and will not for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

Comments are closed.