San Bernardino County sues to stop newly approved Measure K, which cuts supervisor salaries

 San Bernardino County is suing to stop a voter-approved measure that would slash county supervisors’ pay and limit them to only one term in office.

Measure K passed with a ratio of more than 2-to-1 in Nov. 3 election results that were certified this week. It promised to cut each of the five county supervisors’ total compensation — pay and benefits combined — to $60,000 and limit them to a single term in office.

Based on the language of the measure, the pay cut — from a minimum of $242,000 in pay and benefits that each supervisor makes now — could become effective as early as the certification of the election. A hearing on the case is scheduled for Monday, Dec. 7.County officials say both provisions might violate the California Constitution or other laws, and they’ve asked a Superior Court judge to determine if that’s the case, said county spokesman David Wert.

“This measure would have long-term impacts on the county’s ability to serve county residents, so it is vitally important to ensure that the measure is lawful before it is incorporated into the County Charter,” Wert said in a written statement. “An impartial ruling from the court will provide needed direction to the County and is preferable to the County taking action on its own.”

The county’s action is self-serving and bad for residents, said Tom Murphy, president of the Red Brennan Group, which put the measure on the ballot.

“Taxpayers said — by a two-thirds vote — ‘Hey, this is what we want: We want one four-year term and we want pay that’s about the median household income in the county,’” Murphy said. “At a time when households in the county are obviously struggling, county elected leadership is using taxpayer money to go to court and try to stop that.”

Qualified supervisors would not run for office if pay was so low, and they wouldn’t learn enough in a single term to govern adequately, said Curt Hagman, chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

“What you’ll get is people who are only elected to fill an agenda,” Hagman said. “It might look self-serving, but this doesn’t affect me personally. This is about good governance.”One question raised by the lawsuit — which the county also raised in the voter information guide mailed to voters — is whether the measure can legally apply to supervisors who ran for office before Measure K passed.

Murphy didn’t argue Friday that it did, but said Hagman was still acting in self-interest even if his pay is not reduced.

“The reason it affects him is he is part of that, if you will, ruling elite. He’s part of a system that believes this level of compensation is appropriate, and he’ll continue to get a lot of post-retirement benefits from it.”

The county also argues in its filing that according to the state constitution, only the Board of Supervisors, not the voters, may set the board’s compensation, and that it violates the constitution’s prohibition on “impairing essential government functions,” among other provisions.

Murphy said that attorneys had reviewed the measure before submitting it, and while he would defer to his lawyers on the specifics, he didn’t think the county had a case.