Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor And Budget Consent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push board to pull labor items as supervisors approve consent calendar 5-0
Summary
Public commenters pressed the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on April 1 to pull two consent calendar labor items and discuss them publicly, citing a projected $20 million general‑fund shortfall and what speakers described as an expanded use of a charter pay provision; the board approved the agenda and consent calendar, including the disputed items, on a 5‑0 vote.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on April 1 approved the agenda and the consent calendar, including two negotiated labor items that several members of the public had asked be removed for separate discussion.
Public comment focused on items 7 and 8 (management memoranda of understanding and related pay changes). Lee Tanenbaum, president of the El Dorado County Taxpayers Association, urged supervisors to pull the items from consent and open them for discussion, saying the county faces a “$20,000,000 deficit” and that a county charter provision known as Section 504 was being applied broadly to non‑sworn staff. “This current action simply pushes that expansion even further,” Tanenbaum said, citing increases “as high as 35% with some increases reaching $30,000 or more per person.”
Other residents echoed Tanenbaum. Ruth Michaelson said staff reports characterize some costs as offset by "salary savings," but warned that raises are ongoing costs and asked whether positions would remain unfilled in perpetuity to fund the increases. Kevin McCarty, director of the Taxpayers Association, and Leo Bennett of Pollock Pines also asked that the items be agendized for full discussion in the context of the county’s fiscal condition.
At the hearing, several speakers representing county employee groups defended the negotiated changes. John Eslick, who identified himself as president of the California County Managers Association and a member of the negotiating team, said the raises are consistent with what has been negotiated for line employees and that some position adjustments correct salaries that have been “out of whack.”
Chief Administrative Officer Laura Schwartz answered public questions about timing and the budget process and said the board will hold an extended budget discussion next week. She also stated, “neither one of these items provides for additional 5.04 linkages,” aiming to clarify a central public concern about the charter provision mentioned by speakers.
Despite repeated public requests to remove items 7 and 8 from the consent calendar, a supervisor moved to adopt the agenda with no changes and approve the consent calendar. The motion was seconded and carried on a 5-0 vote. The board recorded the vote as “Motion passes 5-0.” Supervisors told the public their questions would be addressed in the upcoming budget briefings and final budget hearings.
The board meeting record shows significant public concern about transparency and the timing of salary increases while the county is forecasting a multi‑million dollar shortfall; speakers asked for item-level public discussion before the board finalizes negotiated settlements or related administrative actions.
What happens next: Supervisors said the budget ad hoc and staff will present more detailed fiscal information at a scheduled multi‑hour budget session next week. Members of the public who asked that items be pulled urged the board to ensure that consent placement does not prevent meaningful public review of financial impacts.
