Pay Hike Approved For San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Board

SAN GORGONIO PASS AREA, CA — A public hearing Monday to consider whether San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency's seven board members should be compensated for double the number of days than they are now was approved in a 6-1 vote.

Director Blair Ball was the dissenter.

Board members receive per diem compensation in the amount of $282.21 for attendance at board meetings and for each day of service as a board member. Prior to Monday's vote, meetings and service days were capped at five per month, which totals $1,411.05 — the maximum monthly stipend a board member could receive. Board members can also expense items, such as mileage, if they provide receipts.

With Monday's vote, the monthly meeting cap was increased from five days to 10 days, potentially doubling a board member's monthly stipend from $1,411.05 to $2,822.10. Board members are not required to take the per diem. Ten is the maximum number of days a board member can be reimbursed under the state's Water Code.

The increase would exceed $118,000 annually if all board members expensed the extra five days each per month. The cost will come from the agency's general fund, according to agency staff.

Overwhelming public opposition to the increase was expressed during Monday's hearing, with more than 30 residents and officials from across the Pass Area voicing concern.

Former San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency board member Michael Thompson called the proposal a "disgusting disgrace" and "grotesque slap in the face."

In a written letter to the water agency, current Beaumont City Council members Lloyd White and David Fenn said the proposed increase was the wrong issue at the wrong time due to the financial worries of many residents amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It's "not sensitive to what our citizens are experiencing," the council members said.

A few other commenters called the proposal a "money grab."

But board members Ron Duncan, Mickey Valdivia, and Robert Ybarra said some of the commenters were misled.

"This is not about greed. This is about misinformation," Valdivia said.

Ybarra is the one who proposed the increase. "I'm not on this board to get paid," he said, noting that some directors are attending more meetings than they are getting compensated for.

Duncan said he was disappointed in Thompson's comments, and he alleged a letter was circulated to the public by Ball that may have swayed residents to come forward "loaded for bear."

"I attend 10, 11 meetings a month and I get compensated for five," Duncan said.

Ball countered that events like school board, city council, and chamber of commerce meetings should not count.

"We like to be in the know," Ball said of board members' interest in attending civic meetings. "It's our nature."

Valdivia presented a document that showed all nearby water agencies compensate their board members for 10 days per month.

But Ball argued, "there isn't a demonstrated need for us to have 10 meetings."

Justification for the stipend increase was outlined in agency documents.

"Board members are regularly called upon to spend in excess of five days per month in the performance of their duties, including attendance of Board meetings, committee meetings, workshops and other functions related to carrying out the business of the Agency," the documents state. "The duties of Board members involve increasing responsibility and obligations and it is reasonable that they be compensated for their time, to the extent permitted by statute, in carrying out the business of the Agency."

Interest in Monday's public hearing brought out nearly 40 public commenters, well above the norm.

Agency President Steve Lehtonen wondered aloud if the high turnout and negative feedback were due to lack of information.

"No director went out and promoted this idea," Lehtonen said.

Ball acknowledged he attended a Calimesa City Council meeting to inform the public about the proposal. Many of the negative comments came from Calimesa.

Valdivia encouraged the public to get involved in bigger, more costly issues that have a greater impact on safe, reliable water.