voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... The Car Allowances

The Union-Tribune has been talking recently about automobile allowances for public officials. There was this longer story Sunday by Matt Hall detailing what all the local agencies give officials to reimburse them for driving. And then, today, columnist Logan Jenkins weighed in.

But he didn't follow this train of thought very far. So he didn't get to the greatest part of these deals especially for, say, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Hall also missed, or didn't care, about this point.

What is it? The Board of Supervisors each get $12,000 a year in an automobile allowance. This was boosted a year and a half ago from $8,000. But this is considered compensation for the Supes. And that means, it factors in their salary when you go to calculate their pension. You might remember I went on about this back when they boosted the allowance.

Supervisory Cruising

So that means, when County Supervisor Ron Roberts suggested, and his colleagues agreed, to boost their automobile allowances in 2006, they also boosted the pension they would eventually receive from the county. This belies any argument they can ever make that all they are doing is reimbursing themselves for all the travel they're doing. It's just another benefit -- another way to boost their salaries and pensions without calling it that.

Finally, what's the funniest part about this? Most county employees, the ones the supervisors oversee, only get reimbursed the way most of America does -- with a straight mileage allowance, the kind where, like Jenkins, wives and husbands everywhere have to remind their spouses to write down all the miles they drive.

Without the automobile allowance, the supervisors earn $143,000 a year. With it, more than $155,000 a year. And it's that total that will be used to factor the pensions that they'll collect for the rest of their lives after they retire. Unless, of course, they get another raise.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

That these clowns get this much of a car allowance is an absolute disgrace. I remember the days when SD City Council members were paid $15,000. Based upon their worth to the city, they were overpaid even at that amount. Figuring in what they have cost the taxpayers for the pension debacle alone, each council member should owe the city approximately $199,925,000.00 plus another couple of hundred from Madaffer for his trick with his water meter. Car allowance? Let Madaffer drive around town in a used Yugo.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 8:35 am

You forgot to mention the ridiculous amount that CV Councilmembers and especially the Mayor get.

Posted by Chula Vistan | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 8:45 am

True enough the politicians have been found out again! They should be forced to use their own cars and Donna should have to make her own arrangements to get to work.

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 9:24 am

What about all the City staffers that get ridiculous auto allowances? How much does that total in the budget?

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 9:35 am

If the car allowances are included for pension benefits, are the car allowances treated as taxable earned income to the Supervisors? I wish, just once, a candidate for public office would disclose their personal earned taxable income plus bebefits while running for City or County Office. I'm tired of hearing these thieves proclaim that they could and did earn so much more before running for office. Come on. What marketable talent & skills do Chris Kehoe, Donna Frye, Ben Hesseo, Kevin Kalkner, Bill Horn, or Pam Slater Price have? They are feasting at the public trough and we don't notice or care about their noses beginning to look like snouts and the little curly tails forming on their behinds.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 10:26 am

Is anyone surprised that Wonton Ron (named by another Poster)would recommend a raise that effected his retirement? He must be able to bank most of the $12,000 dollars, as I'm sure the "Richshaws" in China were provided by his hosts. Wake up America the "Slimey Politicians" are continuing to steal from the taxpayers! Wonton Ron is typical of the animal, first funneling taxpayer's money to organizations; then accepting free trips with the blessings of the other Slimey Supervisors. Unfortunately he's not the only local Slimey Politician traveling: Kehoe, $10,000+ trip to Japan; Kehoe & Ducheny trip to Argentina (obviously to visit the grave of Evita); Ducheny to Tiawan (Movin in on Wonton's area); Saldana to East Germany (Checking masonary in the old wall). Where's the Grand Jury Bonnine Dumanis (investigaiting the SDCERS board members who were doing their job) Where's unstable Aguirre going to prosecute!

Posted by Raul of San Diego | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 11:07 am

Do you think there may be some correlation between low pay and crappy councilmembers? Do you think perhaps that people who are successful at something other than being a council aid are unlikely to be drawn to a job that pays a small fraction of what they are paid in the private world? Of course. The council members we have may not deserve what we pay them now, let alone more, but someone who is highly qualified and already successful in their career (whatever it is) might be willing and financially able to take on these jobs as a service to the public. Councilmember jobs are crappy jobs unless you are either civic minded, or are not likely to get another job as good. The issue isn't what the current bunch deserves; it's what we should pay in order to get a better bunch next time.

Posted by Say, Edgar . . . | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 11:16 am

Donna Frye is a hypocrite.

Posted by Black Sabbath | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 12:03 pm

$12,000 car allowance--'sounds like we're making the payments for their cars, in addition to expenses!

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 3:33 pm

7. Say, Edgar . . . wrote on April 3, 2008 12:16 PM: "Do you think there may be some correlation between low pay and crappy councilmembers? Do you think perhaps that people who are successful at something other than being a council aid are unlikely to be drawn to a job that pays a small fraction of what they are paid in the private world?....Ill take this one Edgar. There is a correlation between government employees at all levels and incompetence, no matter WHAT you pay them. As for what kind of person would be drawn to public service for a fraction of what they make in the private sector-GET SERIOUS. 99% of governmment workers would be making 75% LESS in the private sector. Government pays 50% more, on average, than the private sector. In the case of PD and FD it pays 90% more.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 3:44 pm

Yes this is something the VOSD of San Diego should REALLY do some investigative reporting on. How many city employees get take home cars. How much is the city spending on gas. Do these folks ever get called back to work, I doubt it. Its just another boondoggle of taxpayer funds....

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:27 pm

Oh, but Tom S., don't start picking on the poor staffers. After all they are city civil servants, too. The poor dears are just trying to eke out a meager living on their pathetically poor salaries and then later transfer to their terrible -- just terrible, I tell you -- little pensions that the rest of us are required to provide. This city is full of some of the worst BS. I used to think it was the model of clean government. It was -- and is -- the model of how to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers. I'm sorry I live here now.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 6:29 pm

"Say Edgar": The issue is not what we should be paying to draw in good candidates. We are never going to be able to pay enough money to draw in the managers, engineers, lawyers, bankers, etc. needed to fill the council. The issue is full disclosure and public awareness. Fool us once, shame on us ... etc. The worst offenders (Peters, Madaffer, Maienschein, Atkins) are on their second terms. How did that happen?! Each time there were qualified candidates who were willing to forego their big salaries (or were in a position to continue receiving good sources of income from their businesses or investments). The electorate turned their backs on them in order to get small-time chislers like Madaffer or "let them eat cake" disdainers of the common folk like Scott Peters. For one thing, END DISTRICT-ONLY COUNCIL ELECTIONS -- NOW!!

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 6:35 pm

I agree with Edgar...District only elections are a disaster! 9 fifedoms, little concensus, and each looking out for themselves rather than those they are paid to represent. If we go back to city wide elections, councilmembers would be force to think long and hard about their little pet projects and impacts on the ENTIRE city.

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 5:52 am

I see today the the UT and VOSD have once again struck fear into the souls of our elected politicians. The boondoggle/perk of the outrageous cars allowances now revealed, our elected, and so-called leaders, are running away from them just as fast as they can. But what was more disturbing, was the fact that City's Ethics told them about it in 2006 and they purposely ignored it. Why? GREED of course. It's all about them taking as much as they can. It's not about representing us. If any of these politicians are returned to office we ONLY have ourselves to blame. BRAVO to the VOICE for this piece! You need to to keep digging!!!

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 5:59 am

You're wrong, except for your last comment about district only elections. And BBH, if I wanted you to answer my question, I'd have asked you to. I didn't because I correctly expected you to provide a meaningless response to a comment you obviously didn't understand.

Posted by Say, Edgar | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 3:55 pm

Why thank you "Say Edgar." I'll keep in mind your credentials to speak ex cathedra, as it were, the next time I require an authoritative answer to some particularly thorny question. But, how silly of me. I should have known this already, you being a San Diego civil servant and all.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 4:02 pm

Edgar, perhaps you misread "Say Edgar's" posts, or you didn't understand them, or maybe you don't know how to properly use the phrase "Ex Cathedra"...Quite the juvenile attack..At least I think its a juvenile attack, because your response is almost nonsensical given what "Say Edgar" wrote...Had he tried to speak for you, or he claimed to be a civil servant, I guess your reponse would make sense, but, well...whatever...So baffling.

Posted by What the.. | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 6:24 pm

Let me get this straight; we expect our elected officials; working for us; to drive all over the county for official business; going to meetings; public events and all; to drive their own car; at their own expense? I like it! It's no wonder intelligent people refuse to seek election to public office sans the few millionaires who do it for ego. So you think the monthly stipend for vehicle expenses seems too high? How about the City & County add sufficient vehicles to its fleet to provide transportation for their elected officials doing the peoples business? Add up the costs for the purchase of the vehicles, insurance, maintenance, gas and repairs and you will see the stipend currently provided saves you holier than thou cheep whiners money. Get a life.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 8:28 pm

Hey Sparkster: I believe everyone agrees with my of you comments. But the obvious question is why are San Diego politicians getting being compensated WELL ABOVE the actual costs? If it's a perk or part of the overall compensation, say so, but when you claim you're just covering the costs, creditability once again goes out the window. The second issue is reporting. Just how hard can it be to keep log? Just put a journal next to the seat in your car with a pen and voila it done. Seems to me if long haul truckers can do it, our slimy politicians should be able to manage it too.

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
April 5, 2008 6:33 am

Why does the Undersheriff Gore and the Sheriff get souped up Dodge Chargers at county taxpayer expense????? So Mr. Gore is Kolender's "hand-picked" succesor, huh?? Thats going to be very beneficial for Mr. Gore, whats next? Hummvees??

Posted by A Barba | reply to this comment
April 5, 2008 1:28 pm

Hey, "What the ...": my response to "Say, Edgar" (my, aren't these monikers getting creative? How in the world do you manage to avoid violating the Voice rule against using more than one name per poster? Oh? I see. You don't.)... anyhow, my response to Say was snippy because his response to me was snippy -- calculatedly rude. Sauce for the goose/gander and all that. As for the term "ex cathedra," of course I know what it means. Nothing was inappropriate about its use (in the broader sense) there. Look it up, George Bernard Shaw.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 5, 2008 3:59 pm

16. Say, Edgar wrote on April 4, 2008 4:55 PM: ........ And BBH, if I wanted you to answer my question, I'd have asked you to...... TRANSLATIION, Say Edgar just got schooled by BBH in how incompetent government workers are no matter what you pay them-Exhibit #A-PD and FD.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 6, 2008 8:28 am

More bad grammar and misspelled words by SillyBob while he makes comments on the incompetence of others. Does it get any more clear than that?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 10:39 am

Sure, compensate politicians for the use of their cars -- for city business matters OTHER than driving to and from work -- or for politicking. I have no problem with that. Just have the politicians do what the rest of us must do -- keep track of mileage and the purpose of usage, and then file claims based on that record keeping. Even with the generous current IRS per mile allowance (hell, give 'em 30% over that allowance), we would find that the reimbursement costs would be a fraction of what they are now receiving in their current unquestioned 'allowance' (actually a pension payout booster, as Scott Lewis so astutely pointed out). And BTW, citywide cc elections are the only way to go.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 2:46 pm

Give them a public transit pass. If I recall correctly, the city encourages OTHER businesses to use public transit, even when there's no bus or trolley nearby. They've got a trolley right on C Street. Maybe if public officials used our transit system, it wouldn't be the expensive inefficient embarrassment it is today.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 5:43 am

I agree Fred. I was just about to post that and then I read your statement. Our transit system is an embarrassment and they recently raised fees and eliminated transfers, making it even more of an embarrassment. We should replace the car allowance with a public transit pass and if they want a car then they can buy one and pay for their gas using their salaries, just like every other American has to do.

Posted by Shawn1874 | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 8:13 am

Just making an observation, but Billy Bob Henry and Edgar are seriously mistaken if they think that they are "schooling" anyone about anything. All they are doing is ranting and expressing anger by insulting everyone with an alternative viewpoint. Just articulate the idea that you have and move on. I understand their anger. We should all be angry. I'm angry too.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 8:27 am

By the way; someone wrote this: "Each time there were qualified candidates who were willing to forego their big salaries (or were in a position to continue receiving good sources of income from their businesses or investments). " I disagree. I do not want a mayor who has to spend large portions of his own money. If he isn't capable of raising money like everyone else than he obviously doesn't have much support from the community. It isn't just about money either. How many people are willing to put up with the media scrutiny, lack of privacy, and fights that are necessary to run for office? Different blocks of voters have something that they care about. No public servant has ever served the public without at least 1 or 2 blocks of voters being mad about something!

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 8:27 am

28. shawn1874 wrote on April 9, 2008 9:27 AM: "Just making an observation, but Billy Bob Henry and Edgar are seriously mistaken if they think that they are "schooling" anyone about anything....... Sarcasm = stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound.It is used mostly in a humorous manner, but can express annoyance or anger.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:32 pm

The Car Allowances

Published: Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:13 AM PDT

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed