Board directs HR to pursue data‑driven compensation policy and annual review after public pushback
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony and a data‑heavy presentation, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors directed staff to craft a more robust, market‑driven compensation philosophy, review unrepresented classifications annually, and return options for benchmarks, with an ad hoc outreach plan including labor groups.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday moved to tighten oversight of its compensation policies, directing staff to revise the countywide compensation philosophy and to institute a regular review process for unrepresented and board salaries.
Human Resources Director Joey Carusco summarized a February 2026 total compensation study and explained how the county’s charter section 5 0 4 and the salary resolution’s section 6 0 2 have shaped pay for a small set of executive and public‑safety classifications. “We’re not seeking a final decision today,” Carusco told the board, noting the presentation was intended to inform the supervisors’ directions.
The presentation and the subsequent two‑hour discussion were prompted by public comments and union testimony that accused the county of applying pay increases unevenly. Jen Romaldi, Local 1 president, said the county’s stated compensation goals have not been applied uniformly: “When the discussion is about management … the language is always positive. When lower‑paid workers ask for livable wages, the conversation becomes about costs.” She and other union representatives showed board data translating percentage increases into dollar amounts to illustrate disparities.
The board debated technical and legal questions about the charter linkage. County counsel explained that for certain elected positions the board cannot reduce salary during a term and that the charter mechanism limits the board’s discretion once a formal resolution is adopted. Carusco said most of the seven classifications linked to section 6 0 2 are at or below the market median; the sheriff’s office was about 6% above median in the study, the district attorney just over 1% below.
Supervisor Greg Vierkamp urged a “holistic market‑driven analysis” across the county and suggested separating the mechanics of section 6 0 2 from the broader countywide philosophy so the board can review structure and timing without appearing to “automate” increases. Several supervisors favored setting a predictable cycle that fits budget development; staff recommended an annual review in the fall so changes could be reflected in budgeting discussions.
The board voted 5–0 to direct staff to draft revisions adopting a data‑driven compensation philosophy that retains the goal of aligning pay to competitor medians, and to return with options to (a) set benchmarks and internal linkages for all unrepresented classifications, (b) consider delinking the sheriff/undersheriff coupling in section 6 0 2 if warranted by comparator data, and (c) implement a cadence for reviews (staff suggested annual for unrepresented groups; the board discussed biannual benchmarking for some purposes then decided on an annual practice for reviewing unrepresented compensation and supervisors’ pay).
What’s next: HR will prepare proposed resolution language, a recommended review calendar and a package of benchmark options to return to the board. The board also asked staff to consult labor groups and to schedule at least one ad hoc meeting (chair and vice chair plus staff and labor representatives) to review early drafts and timeline suggestions.
