Report on California Statutory Salaries of Executive Branch of California State Government

COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY Chairman D. W. HOLMES Madera Vice-Chairman MANNING J. POST North Hollywood HARRY BLACKMAN Beverly Hills HOWARD A. BUSBY San Diego JACK R. FENTON Assemblyman, Montebello HAROLD FURST Sa n Fro nci seQ H. HERBERT JACKSON Sacramento JAMES E. KENNEY Pasadena STANLEY E. McCAFFREY Berkeley MILTON MARKS Senator, San Francisco PATRICK D. McGEE Assemblyman, Van Nuys GEORGE MI LLER, JR. Senator, Contra Costa County NATHAN SHAPELL Beverly Hills L. H. HALCOMB, JR. Executive Officer Report on California Statutory Salaries of Executive Branch of California State Government By The Commission on California State Governnlent Organization and Economy December 1968 RONALD REAGAN, Governor COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY 11th &. L Building, Suite 550 Sacramento 95814 Chairman December 11, 1968 D. W. HOLMES Madera The Honorable Ronald Reagan Vice·Chairman Governor of California MANNING J. POST North Hollywood The Honorable President pro Tempore, HARRY BLACKMAN Beverly Hills and Members of the Senate HOWARD A. BUSBY San Diego The Honorable Speaker, JACK R. fENTON and Members of the Assembly Assemblyman, Montebello HAROLD fURST Gentlemen: San Francisco H. HERBERT JACKSON Sacramento This Commission has completed its study of executive compensation in the JAMES E. KENNEY California state service. This study was requested by Governor Reagan in his Pasadeno letter of April 9, 1968, to Mr. D. W. Holmes, the Chairman of the Commission STANLEY E. McCAFfREY Berkeley on California State Government Organization and Economy. In addition, the MILTON MARKS State Legislature through Assembly Concurrent Resolution 105 requested the Senator ~ San Francisco Commission to review and evaluate the executive compensation system in State PATRICK D. McGEE Assemblyman, Van Nuys Government. GEORGE MILLER, JR. In approaching the task of reviewing and evaluating the State's system of Senator, Contra Casto County executive compensation, the Commission first accepted the general precepts of NATHAN SHAPELL Beverly Hill. good salary administration on which to base its evaluation and recommendations. H. L. HALCOMB, JR. These precepts include: (1) The salaries paid to State executives should be Executive 01l'1C9' commensurate with their duties and responsibilities; (2) State executives should be compensated fairly in relation to one another; (3) salaries paid to State executives should be competitive and should enhance the recruitment and reten tion of high caliber executives; and (4:) the differential in salaries paid to execu tives of varying levels of responsibility should be substantial enough to reflect those differences in responsibility. The Commission concludes that: (1) Compensation for executive positions in the State of California has evolved in such a way as to have eluded proper relationships; (2) the creation of new positions has not been coupled with com pensation consistent with existing positions; (3) the levels of statutory salaries have resulted in extreme compaction of the senior management salary struc ture; (4:) there are too many executive statutory salary levels in the Executive Branch; and (5) there is no established procedure for timely periodic review of executive salaries. The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations in detail. ' The study was conducted under the supervision of a Commission subcommittee consisting of Messrs. James E. Kenney, Chairman; Howard A. Busby; and Harold Furst. The Commission's Executive Officer, L. H. Halcomb, Jr., provided coordination for the project. The staff of the State Personnel Board and the Department of Finance ably assisted the Commission with this study. We believe the findings of the Commission are sound and the recommendations justified and, in some instances, long overdue. A basic building block of proper administration of the California State Government is a reasonable compensa tion plan for positions of responsibility. Respectfully submitted, D. W. HOLMES, Chairman MANNING J. POST, Vice-Chairman HARRY BUCKMAN HOWARD A. BUSBY ASSEMBLYMAN JACK R. FENTON ... HAROLD FURST H. HERBERT JACKSON JAMES E. KENNEY STANLEY E. MCCAFFREY SENATOR MILTON MARKS ... ASSEMBLYMAN PATRICK D. MCGEE'" SENATOR GEORGE MILLER, JR. ... NATHAN SHAPELL • Absent during CommiSSion deliberation. 3 REPORT ON CALIFORNIA STATUTORY SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS pa.ge 1. Introduction ______________________________________________________ 7 2. Scope and 1fethod _________________________________________________ 7 3. Findings and Conclusions___________________________________________ 8 4. Recommendations _________________________________________________ 10 APPENDIX I. Tables _________________________________________________________ 15 II. Compensation Study Requests _____________________________________ 21 III. References ______________________________________________________ 23 5 INTRODUCTION A system of equitable executive compensation in tions in state government be equitable, both in the State of California should be of importance to all relation to one another and in relation to similar the citizens of the state. The government of California positions in other governmental jurisdictions. is headed by a relatively small number of executives. The proposals contained herein present approaches The process of selecting, training, and evaluating the to meeting these goals and objectives. employees and officers of the state is inhibited if they are not adequately compensated for their efforts. It SCOPE AND METHOD is the problem of executive compensation established 1. Scope by statute to which this Commission has directed its attention. The purview of this study was limited to execu tive positions in the California State Government Three objectives or goals were formulated to guide executive branch whose salary rates are set by the commission in this study: statute. This group includes 54 full-time ad 1. Alleviate Compaction of Salaries ministrators, 42 full-time board and Commission In most state departments, the salary of the di Members, 21 part-time board and Commission rector in effect establishes an upper limit for Members, and 293 board and Commission Mem salaries of other employees in that department, bers who are paid a daily rate for each official including both exempt and civil service person meeting attended. nel. .As salaries for exempt and civil service po Exempt positions whose salaries are not estab sitions have increased over the years, the salaries lished by statute, such as deputy directors, were of statutory directors have increased at a much excluded from the scope of this study since slower pace. This has caused the salary differen salaries for such exempt positions are established tial between the director and his subordinates administratively. The salaries for civil service to dwindle. In many instances, the difference in executives are set by the State Personnel Board salary between a director and his chief deputy and, similarly, were excluded from this study. director is one dollar per month. In addition, a number of exempt positions whose salaries are set by statute are not included in 2. Establish Compensation to Attract and Retain speci:fic salary recommendations. Some of these High-Caliber Personnel for State Executive positions function within the hierarchy of an Positions. organization in a manner similar to other exempt The efficient and responsible operation of the administrative positions whose salaries are not executive branch of the California State Govern set by statute. The scope of responsibility of ment requires the employment of the most quali others did not appear to equate to the lowest :fied personnel available. To continue to attract statutory salary level proposed. A speci:fic rec and retain high-caliber personnel the state must ommendation concerning both types of these offer reasonably competitive salaries. In the Com positions is included in the recommendation por mission's report of 1965, A Study of Manage tion of this report. ment Manpower Requirements-California State Government, the Commission cited under the 2. Method heading "Motivating Managers to Excel" the The resources utilized by the Commission in this following: study were varied and extensive. Salary admin "In the state government as in most organiza istration plans from other governmental jurisdic tions, compensation levels continue to be the tions were studied and evaluated including focal point of all incentive devices. The Com those of the Federal Government, the State of mission's :findings indicate, however, that the New York, and the County of Los Angeles. highest salaries offered by the State of Cali Salary data from a variety of recent executive fornia to managerial echelons are signi:ficantly salary surveys were also reviewed. Numerous low in relation to those offered by private types of data relating to state salaries were de industry for analogous positions. They also veloped; the history of state executive salaries compare unfavorably with the salaries paid by was reviewed and previous studies of statutory the State of New York, the Federal Govern salaries in the State of California were ana ment, and even some municipal governments." lyzed. Charts and tables on salary compaction were also reviewed and analyzed. Program state 3. Remedy Salary Inequities ments were obtained for each department to help Salary inequities exist when the salaries paid evaluate the scope of responsibilities inherent in to the various executives are lower or higher those positions. A complete listing of the refer than the salaries paid to other executives with ences utilized by the Commission in this study comparable responsibilities. It is the view of is available in the appendix. Program state this Commission that salaries of executive posi- ments are available in a separate volume. 7 Upon these and other data enumerated in the ployers. Salaries paid to California state execu appendix, the Commission based its findings and tives have not always been low in relation to conclusions. other governmental employers. In 1955, Califor nia ranked considerably better in comparison to FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS various governmental agencies than it does now. This fact is illustrated in Table II (appendix). 1. Salaries for State Executives Are Low Further illustration of the lag in the increases of Conducting the business and administering the statutory salaries in California is shown below. responsibility of the government of the State of California is a tremendous task. Clearly, no one EXECUTIVE SALARY INCREASE TRENDS IN man can oversee all of the activities of this vast GOVERNMENT state. The Governor requires highly qualified in 1955-1968 AND 1960-1968 dividuals to direct the varied programs of the many departments in the executive branch of Percent increase state government. The men heading these depart California 195~8 1900-68 ments require a combination of skills in both Average of 19 departmental substantive and administrative fields and an un directors -----_______________ 58% 24% U.S. Government derstanding of the political environment in Average of GSj16, 17, and 18 ____ 85 53 which they must function. Typically, such indi New York viduals are difficult to recruit and retain. Often Average of Commissioners_ ______ 91 80 time, they must make a financial sacrifice to ac Los Angeles County Average of six department heads __ 75 41 cept their appointment in state government be cause of the relatively low pay for state execu It is clear that it is time for California to meet tives. the level of compensation offered by comparable Obviously, there are inducements other than sal employers in the field of executive salaries. ary which motivate well-qualified persons to ac 2. Low Statutory Executive Salaries Have Res1tlted cept appointments as the heads of state depart in Compaction of the Top Management Salary ments. Prestige of office and a sense of public Structure service are strong incentives for accepting a po The salaries paid to statutory department heads sition offered by the Governor, but the state in the California state government set a ceiling must also offer salaries which are at least compet on the entire salary structure within their re itive with those paid to top executives in other spective departments. This ceiling includes both large governmental jurisdictions. exempt deputy directors and executives in the In 1965, in its report on management manpower civil service. From 1964 to 1968, the salaries of requirements previously referred to, the Commis department heads have increased by 5.6 percent, sion stated: as shown in Table III (appendix). During this "The highest salaries paid by the State of same time period the salaries of exempt and California are low when compared to those civil service executives increased as the prevail offered not only by private industry, but also ing wage increased throughout the economy. by the State of New York, the Federal Govern Civil service salaries, for example, have been ad ment, and by some municipal governments justed an average of 21.1 percent since 1964. The including local governments in California. The result of lagging executive salary adjustments incongruous fact is that 85 to 90 percent of all has been to reduce continually the salary differ California state employees in the lower and ential between the director and his subordinates. middle ranks are paid salaries comparable to This narrowing differential has occurred further those of employees doing equivalent work in into the lower subordinate levels of the depart private industry. However, those men and ments as the salaries of directors have remained women who serve in positions at the upper unchanged. The inadequacy of the supervisory management levels are, by and large, paid salary differentials in many of the departments salaries significantly below the compensation is illustrated in Table V (appendix). of individuals doing comparable work else The differentials between executives in Califor where." nia state government are extremely narrow in This statement is still true today. Table I (ap comparison with the differentials offered by not pendix) shows a sample of the salaries paid to only private industry but by other governmental top executives by our Federal Government, the employers. Table IV (appendix) shows typical State of New York, the County of Los Angeles, salary differentials between top executives in the City of Los Angcles, the City/County of San public utilities, manufacturing firms, and other Francisco, the City of San Diego, the University governmental jurisdictions as well as California of California, and various administrative officers State Government. Clearly, the current salary of several counties throughout the state. The sal differentials between directors and their deputies aries shown in Table I are not intended to im are inadequate. The following chart illustrates ply that direct job comparisons were made; how salary differentials between directors and rather, they illustrate the significantly higher their chief deputies have gradually diminished salaries being paid by other governmental em- during the past several years. s PERCENTAGE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND DEPUTY DIRECTORS 1955-1968 PERCENTAGE 20 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- 16% ~ 15 15 10 10 8% 5 5 3.25% M o o 1955 1960 1962 1964 1964* 1965 1966 1967 1968 SELECTED YEARS • After adjustments of August 22, 1964. This graph is based on the following departments: Agriculture, Conservation, Corrections, Education. Employment, Fish and Game, General Services, Highway Patrol, Justice, Mental Hygiene, Motor Vehicles, Parks and Recreation, Professional and Vocational Standards, Public Health, Public Works, Rehabilitathm, Social Welfare, Veterans Affairs, Water Resources, and Youth Authority. The impact of inadequate salary differentials be years through the creation of new positions and tween departmental directors and their chief various adjustments of statutory salaries by the deputies has been felt deeply in the salary struc Legislature. It would appear reasonable to re ture of many departments and has affected many duce the number of levels and to establish fewer civil service positions. The result of the low sal but more meaningful differentials between the ary ceilings in these departments has necessi various executive salary levels. tated shortening the salary ranges of many civil 4. There Is No Established Method or Procedttre service classes to less than the normal five-step, for Review of Exec1ttive Salaries or 21-percent, salary range. This occurs when the maximum salary of the civil service range A major defect in the state's executive compen approaches that of the exempt deputy director sation system is the lack of a procedure for the or the director of the department, and the range planned periodic review, evaluation, and adjust has been narrowed artificially to maintain a mini ment of executive salaries. At the federal level, mum differential. Positions at this level in pri these functions are handled by the "Commission vate industry typically offer a salary range of on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salar 30 to 40 percent and more·. Currently, there are ies." Los Angeles County recently established a 108 civil service classes involving more than 260 "county pay review committee" to make salary persons whose salary ranges have been narrowed. recommendations for executives, department heads, and their chief deputies. In past years 3. There Are an Excessive Number of Statutory comprehensive studies of the state's executive Salary Levels in the Executive Branch salary structure have been conducted, but these An examination of the salaries of administrative have not resulted in a permanent mechanism for statutory positions shows that there are 15 dif salary review and adjustment. In 1965, the Com ferent salary rates. The diffe·rentials between mission on California State Government Organ these vary from 28.5 to 0.9 percent. These levels ization and Economy proposed a citizens' "blue have apparently evolved during the past several ribbon committee" to be appointed by the Gov,- ernOr every four years to express judgment on RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE SALARIES the adequacy of statutory salaries. A similar pro FOR STATUTORY OFFICfRS posal is presented later in this report. Current Proposed RECOMMENDATIONS Title of executive salary salary The Commission on California State Government O.r~~ization a~d Economy recognizes that the possi Director of Finance ___ .... ______________ $31,835 $35,000 bIlIties for realIgnment of the executive salary struc Agency Secretaries (4) ___________________ 28,875 35,000 ture in the State of California are infinite. In the Director of Mental Hygiene_~ .. _________ 27.300 32.500 opinion of the Commission adjustments can be recom Director of Public ~~",.,,~a;.._ 27.300 32.500 mended only with the understanding that this rec Superintendent of Banks_ ________________ 25.725 30,000 ommendation encompasses the governmental structure Commissioner of Corporations ____________ 25,725 30,000 as it exists today. The problem of compaction is so "'Director of Employment. ________________ 25,725 30,000 acute today that immediate relief is a necessity. Pro Insurance Commissioner _________________ 25,725 30,000 vision for periodic refinement and modification of the Director of Public Works ________________ 25,725 30,000 Savings and Loan Commissioner_ _________ 25,725 30,000 executive salary structure is a part of the Commis Director of Social Welfare _______________ 25.725 30.000 sion's recommendation and this important feature of Director of Watar Resources_ 25,725 30.000 the study cannot be overemphasized. "'Director of Human Resources Development 25,725 30.000 Department of Agriculture _______________ 24,675 30.000 A. Executive Salaries Director of Correctio1lll __________________ 24.675 30,000 Director of General Services ______________ 24,675 30,000 1. It is recommended that the relative salary rela Director of Industrial Relatio1lll __________ 24.675 30,000 tionships of department heads be generally re Director of Motor Vehicles _______________ 24.675 30.000 tained as they have evolved through past legis Director of Youth Authority _____________ 24,675 30.000 Director of Health Care Services __________ 23,625 30,000 lative action. It is proposed, however, that Commissioner. California Highway PatroL_ 23.625 30.000 positions with similar levels of responsibility be grouped at fewer levels of pay as shown in Director of Alcoholic Beverage ControL ___ 23,625 27.500 Director of Conservation_ -------------- 23,625 27,500 the table to the right. Director of Fish and Game. ._ ____________ 23,625 27,500 2. The proposed salaries for statutory officers: Executive Officer. Franchise Tax Board_ ___ 23,625 27,500 Director of Parks and Recreation ___ .. ____ 23,625 27,500 a. Reflect the combined judgments and opin Real Estate Commissioner _______________ 23,625 27,500 ions of knowledgeable officials in the execu Director Rehabilitation __________________ 23.625 27,500 Director of Veterans Affairs ______________ 23,625 27.500 tive branch and members of this Commission Director of Commerce ___________________ 23,625 27.500 concerning relative rankings of responsibili Director of Professional and Vocational Standards ____________________________ ties and program complexities for the posi 22.575 27.500 tions listed. This grouping basically retains Director of Harbors and Watercraft _______ 22.575 25.000 the existing salary groupings of department Director. California Disaster Office ________ 22.575 25,000 heads as they have evolved through legisla Director. Department of Housing and tive action. Community Development_ _____________ 22,575 25,000 b. Permit meaningful differentials between sal ary levels in the executive branch by reduc • Und .... the provUUOIlll of AD 1463 the Department of Employment will be abolished by JlIIluary I, 1970. The function. of the D.partment of Employment will be hlilldled ing the number of salary rates from 15 to 5 by the newly ostablished Department of Hu!D.llll ~0001 Development. with a significant dollar spread between NOTE: The Adjutant General was excluded sinee the statu""" pronde that his !IIllarJ levels. shall be that of a lieutenant general in the United States Army. c. Provide a comprehensive understandable plan of compensation which will more ade these departments is acute because of the high quately provide recognition for the contribu salary level of the medical staff in the depart tion of the state's statutory executives. ments and the various organizational levels in d. Permit the remedy of salary compaction and those departments. To recruit capable staff with other inequities to a substantial degree. It is the particular professional and educational re~ acknowledged, however, that a complete rem quirements for these departments has required ed.y will not be achieved in all departments. a salary structure which is very high in relation e. Establish compensation at levels designed to to nonmedical departments in state government. attract and retain highly qualified people in It is the conclusion of the Commission that the state government. salaries of medical department heads be related f. Result in increases in salaries for these posi internally to the salaries of other statutory ex tions from 9.9 to 26.9 percent. ecutives in state government. Secondary consid eration was given to the prevailing salary rates 3. Medical Department Heads for medical executives in other governmental The salary recommendations for medical direc tors (Departments of Mental Hygiene and Pub jurisdictions. lic Health) are modest in view of prevailing B. Board and Commission Member Salaries salaries for positions of this type in certain 1'he question of salaries for board and commission other jurisdictions. The Commission found, how ever, that these department heads have unique members presents a particularly difficult problem. salary problems. The compaction of salaries in There are over 350 members on the numerous 10 boards and commissions. There are four basic cate 1. Full-Time Board and Commission Members gories of board and commission members for sal The salary structure for full-time board and ary purposes: commission members was established by group -Full-time board and commission members who ing members at similar pay rates into four basic are paid on an annual basis. pay levels from $18,000 to $30,000 per year. These pay levels generally reflect salary levels -Part-time board and commission members who which are reasonable in relation to th()Se pro are paid on an annual basis. posed for statutory executives. In addition, it -Part-time board and commission members who is recommended that the presiding officer of a are paid a daily rate for each official meeting full-time board or commission receive a salary attended. 5 percent higher than the regular members of - Part-time board and commission members who the board or commission to reflect his additional do n()t receive compensation but are reim responsibilities. The table below indicates the bursed for expenses incurred in performing proposed annual salaries for the various full their official duties. time board and commission members. RECOMMENDED SALARIES FOR FUL .... l1MI BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS Current annual salaries Propoeed annual salaries I Board or Commission Member Presiding officer Member Presiding officer Public Utilities Commiesion ____________________________ $26,250 (4) $26,775 $30,000 $31,500 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ________________ 25,200 (4) 25,725 27,500 28,875 Adult Authority ______________________________________ 21,525 (6) 22,050 25,000 26,250 Board of Equalization _________________________________ 21,525 (4) 22,050 25,000 26,250 State Water Resources Control Board ___________________ 21,525 (4) 22,050 25,000 26.250 Youth Authority Board_ _______________________________ 21,525 (7) -------- 25,000 26,250 Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board _______________ 14,700 (2) 15,225 18,000 18,900 I NOTE: This table does not include the Worklllen'. Compenation Appeals Board, since the ..t ute. provide that their salaries IIhall be at parity with Superior Court Jud,pe, 1I'biehis equal to 130,672 per year. 2. Part-Time Board and Commission Members bers be increased 20 percent to maintain their Receiving an Annual Salary salaries in relation to those of department Board and commission members in this categ()ry heads. The proposed salary rates for these posi devote a portion of their time to their duties. tions are shown in the table below: The annual salaries established by statute for 3. Board and Commission Members Receiving these positions are intended to recognize their Daily Rate Compensation responsibilities and the estimated time spent by the appointees in carrying out their duties. There are 293 part-time board and commission The Commission proposes that the salaries es members who are compensated on a daily basis tablished for these board and commission mem- for each official meeting attended. This compen- RECOMMENDED SALARIES FOR PART-TIME BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS I Number of Current Proposed Title positions annual salary annual salary *Chairman, Board of Barber Examiners ____________________________________ 1 $9,345 $11,214 *Member, Board of Barber Examiners_ 2 8,820 10,584 Commissioner, Board of Harbor Commis;i~~~;;f~;-H~~b~idtB~_;;~~~=====~== 2 525 630 Commissioner-Secretary, Board of Harbor Commissioners for Humboldt Bay __ I 1,890 2,268 Chairman, California Women's Board of Terms and Parolcs _________________ 1 9.450 11,340 Member, California Women's Board of Terms and Paroles ___________________ 5 8,925 10,710 Chairman, Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority __________________________ 1 10,500 12,600 M M e e m m b b e e r r , , N St a a r t c e o P ti e c r s A o d n d n i e c l t B E o v a a r l d u _ a _ ti _ o _ n _ _ A _ u __ th _ o _ r _ i _ t _ y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 ______ 3 9,975 11,970 5 8,400 10,080 . • The chairman and two membera of the five-member Barber Board serve in a full-time (!Ilpaeity. Collllnisl!ioner Manning 1. Post. Vice chairman, does not ~oneur with this l'IlOommendation for salary i ........ in that he beli ...... s itineonsistent with a prior I'''''J)O<jIIl of this Con:unission that the use of Barber Board membem in this (!Ilpaeity bediscontinued. (Bee "An Examinatioll of the D<Jpa.rtment of Professional and Vocational Standards", September 1967,) 11 sation is ~n addition to any reimbursement they It is recognized that additional funds may be re may reCeive for expenses incurred in the per quired to permit the relief of compaction between for:nance of their duties. The basis of compen administrative levels for both exempt and civil sation for these positions is unclear and the service positions. This should be taken into ac wide variety of rates paid to members of dif count at an appropriate time in the budgetary ferent boards and commissions does not appear process. to provide a logical salary structure. In the short time provided for this study the Com E. Positions Whose Salaries Should Not Bo Set by mission was not able to evaluate the salary Statute structure for this group. Therefore the Com As stated earlier, there are a number of exempt mission is not making a salary recommendation positions whose salaries are set by statute for for positions of this type. We do urge how which salary proposals have not been made. It is ever, that attention be given to the salary needs recommended that the salaries of the following of this group in the near future. positions now established by statute be subject to Section 18004 of the Government Code, which C. Governor's Secretaries' Salaries would cause their salary to be subject to the ap Section 12001 of the California Government Code proval of the Department of Finance. These posi provides: tions are: "The Governor may appoint and fix the sala Administrative Director," Division of Industrial ries of such secretaries and other personnel as Accidents ($30,572 per year) he deems necessary for his office. No salary fixed Consumer Counsel ($18,900 per year) under this section shall exceed $16,500 an. Deputy Director of Employment ($21,525 per nually, except the salary of the Executive Sec year) retary to the Governor shall not exceed $24,500 Secretary, California Horse Racing Board ($14,- annually, and the salaries of eight secretaries 700 per year) to the Governor, including not more than two State Architect (General Services) ($23,000 per legislative secretaries, shall not exceed $20,000 year) annually.' , State Fire Marshal ($18,900 per year) This section was amended by Assembly Bill 32 State Printer (General Services) ($20,475 per and incorporated in the Budget Bill, which au year) thorized the Governor to set the salaries of the State Planning Officer (Finance) ($21,000 per secretaries covered in Section 12001 of the Gov year) ernment Code at a rate 5 percent above the maxi mum salaries specified in that section. The cur • Th,? statute now sets th!s salary at parity with superior court Judges. rent maximum salaries are: Executive Secretary F. Executive Salary Review Committee $25,725 annually and the eight secretaries of the Governor $21,000 annually, other personnel $17,- As mentioned previously, there is a need for a 325 annually. more timely and systematic review of statutory salaries. In addition, there is a need for coordi The salary limits available to the Governor should nation of salary aetion between civil service sala be increased in order to provide salaries for the ries established and maintained by the State Governor's secretaries which are comparable to Personnel Board, salaries approved by the Depart those for other top-level administrators. It is rec ment of Finanee, and those set by the Legislature. ommended that Section 12001 of the California It is recommended that the state provide for a Government Code be amended to provide that the system of future review and adjustment of execu Executive Secretary's salary maximum shall not tivc statutory salaries which will keep them cur exceed $35,000 annually and that the eight secre rent and competitive. It is proposed that a "Com taries to the Governor shall not exceed $27,500 mittee on Executive Salaries" be established. The annually. It is believed that these limits will per membership of this Committee would consist of mit a logical salary relationship with other statu the following: (1) the Governor's Appointment tory executive salaries and provide flexibility of Secretary, (2) a public member appointed by the salaries dependent upon the scope and degree of Senate, (3) a public member appointed by the responsibility vested in the positions at any given Assembly, (4) the Chairman of the Commission time. Other personnel under this Scction 12001 on California State Government Organization and shall receive a salary not to exceed $20,000 Economy, (5) a member of the Commission on annually. California State Government Organization and D. Appropriation of Funds Economy appointed by the chairman of the com It is recommended that funds totaling approxi mission, (6) a member of the State Personnel mately $375,000 be appropriated to make possible Board, and (7) the Director of the Department of the various salary adjustments proposed. $270,000 Finance. would come from the General Fund with the bal The staff assistance to this Committee would be ance of $105,000 to be allocated from special supplied jointly by the Department of Finance funds. This total amount represents less than one and the State Personnel Board. The Committee hundredth of 1 percent of the salaries and wages would be appointed biennially on January 30 com of the executive branch for the 1968-69 fiscal year. mencing in 1970. The term of appointment would 12 be for one year. The Committee would take into ac responsible and impartial group. The recommen count in its study all pertinent data regarding dations of the Committee will serve to bring to salary changes of state personnel and similar exec the attention of the Legislature and the adminis utive positions in other private and governmental tration the salary needs of these key executive organizations. positions. In addition to determining what salary The establishment of this Committee and its peri adjustments are warranted, the Committee will as odic review of executive salaries should help to sist in maintaining equitable salary relationships prevent some of the serious salary compression internally among the various executives and will problems that the state is now facing. It will pro reflect in the salary structure organizational and vide an objective review of pertinent data by a legislative changes as appropriate. 13 APPENDIX I TABLES 1. Annual Salaries of Selected Government Officials as of July 1, 1968. 2. Comparative Salary Rankings of Department Heads in Five Government Jurisdictions for Selected Years. 3. Salary History From 1955 to 1968 for All Departmental Directors. 4. Average Salary Differentials Between Top-Level Executives and Their Im mediate Subordinates in Government, Public Utilities and Industry. 5, Director's Salary Compared with Salaries of Executive Subordinates. 15 - 0. TABLE I ANNUAL SALARIES OF SELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS OF JULY 1, 1968 Prepared 10/25/68 City and County of Various county admini- U.S. federal government State of New York County of Los Angeles City of I.os Angeles San Franci.:;co City of San Diego" strativc officers University of California Commissioners of: County Secretary of AgricultUre Agriculture and Commissioner of Chief of Police Sheriff City Ma.nager Alameda. President $35.000 Markete $35.500 Agriculture $21,792 $32.820 $24,418 $38,820 $36,000 $45,000 Seuetary of Labor Industry (Labor) Sheriff Director of Parks and Director of Parks and City Attorney Contra Costa Vice President $35,000 $35,500 $36,516 Recreation $29,484 Recreation $27,180 $33,528 $31.500 $42,500 Director of FBI Conservation Forester and Fire Treasurer Assessor City Engineer Kern Vice President $30,000 $32.265 Warden $33,696 $29,484 $31,821 $27,576 $27,480 (Admin.) $37,000 Secretary of Interior Corrections Director, Parks and Assistant City Admini- Executive Assistant to Public Works Director Los Angeles Vice President $35,000 $35,500 Recreation $28,692 strative the Chief Adminis- $27,576 $38,520 (Academic Director, Bureau of Prisons Ta.x and Finance Assessor Officer $25,704 trative Planning Director Orange Affairs) $34,000 $28,000 $35,500 $36,516 General Manager of Officer $24,060 $26,268 $36,516 Vice President Director, N "tiona! Park Service General Services Treasurer-Tax Collector Los Angeles Civil Gencral Manager- U tiliti. . Director Riverside (Agricultural Science) $28,000 $35,500 $30,276 Service ~ Department Personnel 329,954 $26,268 331,584 $30,000 Commi""ioner of Intcrnal Mental Hygiene Chief, Management $27,924 Director of Public Fire Chief Sacramento Vice Presidcnt Revenue Service $29,500 $38,000 Dh1.sion $23,676 City Engineer Hcalth $32,244 $25,020 $32,568 (Educational Commissioner of Filsh and Motor Vehicles Director of Mental $31,104 General Manager Police Chief San Bcrnardino Relations) Wildlife $28,000 $35,500 Hygiene $31,941 Social Serviccs $25,020 $31,932 $32,000 Administrator of General Health Pcrsonnel Director $27,180 San Diego Vice President Services Administration $38,000 $32,820 City Engineer $33,528 (Planning and $29,500 Social Services Health Officer $27,852 San Francisco Analysis) $32,500 Commiasioner of Medical $35500 $33,696 $37,032 Vice President Services $28,000 Conserva. tion 1 Director of Public San Mateo (B usiness and Secretary of Transportation $35,500 Social Services $37,128 Finance) $32,500 $35,000 Motor Vehicles $33,696 Santa. Barbam Chancellor Chairman of U.S. Civil Service $35,500 County Engineer $31,440 (Santa Barbara) Commission $29,500 $32,820 Ventura $37,000 Administrator of Social And $30,996 Chancellor Rehabilitation Services (Santa Cruz) $28,750 $37,000 Commissioner of Reclamation $28,000 "Maximum salary of the rAnge. TABLE II COMPARATIVE SALARY RANKINGS OF DEPARTMENT HEADS IN FIVE GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS FOR SELECTED YEARS Publio Health Public Works Social Welfare 1955 New York _____________ _ 18,500 New York ______________ _ 19,500 New York_______________ 18,500 California ______________ _ 17,500 Califomia _______________ _ 18,000 California______ __ ________ 14,500 Los Angeles County_ ____ _ 16,560 Los Angeles County _____ _ 17,496 Federal_____ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ 13,000 Federal_ _______________ _ 15,000 Los Angeles City ________ _ 15,672 Los Angeles City _ __ _ __ __ _ 10,000 Federal ________________ _ None for Los Angeles City_ 15,000 Not available for Los Angeles County 1960 Los Angeles County_ ____ _ 21,792 Los Angeles County _____ _ 24,324 Los Angeles City_________ 20,008 California ______________ _ 21,492 California _______________ _ 22,050 California______ __ __ __ _ _ __ 18,180 New York _____________ _ 20,000 New York ______________ _ 21,000 New York_ __ __ _ __ __ _____ 20,000 Federal_ _______________ _ 20,000 FederaL ________________ _ 20,000 FederaL_________________ 17,514 None for Los Angeles City Los Angeles City ________ _ 20,600 Not available for Los Angeles County 1968 New York _____________ _ 38,000 New York ______________ _ 35,500 New York ______________ _ 35,500 Los Angeles County_ ____ _ 33,696 Los Angeles County _____ _ 32,820 Los Angeles County _____ _ 33,696 FederaL _______________ _ FederaL _______________ _ Federal ________________ _ 28,750 29,500 28,000 None for Los Angeles City Los Angeles City ________ _ 27,852 Los Angeles City ________ _ 27,180 California ______________ _ 27,300 California _______________ _ 25,725 California _______________ _ 25,7211 17 (XI TABLE III SALARY INCRIASE HISTORY FOR STATUTORY DEPARTMENT HEADS SINet 1955 1957 1959 1960 1962 1964 1968 1955 annual Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Department heads salaries Salaries increase Salaries increase Salaries inorease Salaries inorease Salaries increase Salaries increase Aeronauticsl, 2_ _____________ $9,000 $12,000 33.3 $12,600 5 $13,2362 5 $15,225 15 $15,550 2.1 $20,496 32.2 Agriculture _______ -------__ 15,500 17,000 10 17,850 5 18,743 5 19,680 5 23,500 19.4 24,675 5 A C B C l o a o c n m n o k s h m i e o n r e l g v i r c _ c a _ e t B i _ _ o e _ _ n v _ _ ' e _ _ _ r _ _ _ a _ _ _ g _ _ _ e _ _ _ _ _ _ C _ _ - o _ - _ _ n _ - t _ - - r _ _ _ o _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 5 5 , , 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - 1 1 6 6 , , 5 5 0 0 - - - 0 0 - 1 10 0 - - - 1 1 7 7 , , 3 3 2 2 - 5 5 5 5 - - - - 1 1 8 8 , , 1 1 9 9 - - 1 1 - - 5 5 - - - - 1 1 H 9 8 I, , , 1 5 1 0 0 2 - 1 - 1 2 5 5 - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 4 , , , 5 5 5 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 2 2 1 8 1 7 - . . . 3 4 - 8 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 , , , , 5 6 6 7 7 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -- Corporations_ _______ ---____ 13,500 15,000 11.1 15,750 5 16,538 5 17,365 5 24,500 41 25,725 -- Corrections ______ ------____ 17,000 19,000 11.8 19,950 5 20,948 5 20,948 0 23,500 12.2 24,675 5 Disaster Office· _____________ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18,552 21,500 15.9 22,575 5 E Fi m na p n lo c y e m __ e _ n _ t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 17,000 19,000 U.8 19,950 5 20,948 5 20,948 0 24,500 17 25,725 5 Fish and Game _____________ 2 1 1 4 , , 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 7 6 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 8 0 . . 6 3 2 1 8 6 , , 8 8 7 0 5 0 6 5 .9 3 1 0 7 , , 3 6 1 4 9 0 5 5 3 1 0 8 , , 3 5 1 5 9 2 0 5 .2 2 3 2 0, , 3 5 1 0 9 0 2 0 1 .3 3 2 1 3, , 6 8 2 3 5 5 5 5 F G H H r e a e a n r a n b e l c t o r h h a r i l s C s S e a a e n T r r e d v a i S x W c e e _ r s a _ v 5 t _ _ i e _ c _ r _ e _ c s _ _ r _ _ a _ _ _ f _ _ t _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15,5 - 0 - -- - 0 - 17,00 - - - - - - 0 9 - - .6 - - 17,85 - -- - 0 5 - - - - - - 18,74 - - - 3 - - - 5 - - - - - - 19,68 - - - - 0 - - 5 - - -- - - 2 2 2 3 , , 5 5 0 0 - - - - 0 0 14 - - - . - 3 - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 , , , , 5 5 6 6 7 7 2 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 - - - - Highway PatroL ___________ 15.000 16,500 10 17,325 5 18,191 5 19,101 5 22,500 17.8 23,625 5 Housing and Community Development'_ ___________ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 22,575 -- I In n s d u u r s a t n ri c a e l _ R _ e _ l _ a _ t _ io _ n __ s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 15,000 16,500 10 17,325 5 18,191 5 19,101 5 23,500 23 24,675 5 15,500 17,000 10 17,850 5 18,743 5 19,680 5 24,500 24.5 25,725 5 Mental Hygiene_ ___________ 18,000 22,500 25 23,625 5 24,806 5 24,806 0 26,000 4.8 27,300 5 M Pa o r t k o s r a V n e d h i R c e le c s r _ e _ a _ t _ io __ n _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16,00 -- 0 19,00 - 0 - 18.7 19,95 - 0 - 5 -- 20,94 -- 8 5 -- 2 1 0 8 , , 9 5 4 2 8 2 0 -- 2 2 2 3 , , 5 5 0 00 0 1 21 2 . . 4 2 2 2 4 3 , , 6 6 7 2 5 5 5 5 Professional and P R P u u e V b b a l l l o i i c c E c a s W H t t i a o e o t n a r e a l k _ t l s h _ S _ _ _ _ t _ _ a _ _ _ n _ _ _ _ d _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ rd _ _ _ _ _ _ s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 1 1 3 7 8 3 , , , , 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 9 5 , , , , 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 5 5 , , , , 0 4 7 7 0 7 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 6 6 , , , , 4 5 0 5 9 3 5 3 9 8 8 0 5 5 5 5 2 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 , , , , 0 4 3 3 5 9 6 6 0 9 5 5 5 0 0 5 2 2 2 2 1 4 6 2 , , , , 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 9 . . . 1 8 5 2 2 2 2 2 7 5 3 , , , , 5 3 7 6 7 0 2 2 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rehabilitation 8_ ____________ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 22,500 -- 23,625 5 Savings and Loan __________ 13,500 15,000 11.1 15,750 5 16,538 5 17,365 5 24,500 41 25,725 5 Social Welfare _____________ 14,500 16,500 13.8 17,325 5 18,191 5 19,101 5 24,500 28.3 25,725 5 Veterans Affairs_ ___________ 13,500 15,000 11.1 15,750 5 16,538 5 17,365 5 22,500 29.6 23,625 5 Water Resources' ___________ -- 20,000 -- 21,000 5 22,050 5 22,050 0 24,500 11.1 25,725 5 Youth Authority ___________ 14,500 19,000 31 19,950 5 20,948 5 20,948 0 23,500 12.2 24,675 5 Average _______________ $15,261 $17,562 15.1 $18,462 5.1 $19,386 5 $19,824 2.3 $23.461 ~J8.3 $24,512 5.6 I Director deleted from .tatutory equali.,.tion plan in 1967. • Department established in 1986• • Director recei'Ved increase in 1961 to 114,500. • Department eetabliohed in 19611; saI.a.ry of director eetabli8bed at 118,000 per year; funetioD8 tranofemd !'rom De I Departments established in 1961; salaries of directors set at $17.640 per year; the two departments were created frOD! partment of Indu.trial Rda.tions. abolished Department of Natura! Resources. • Department eetablished in 1963; wary of director eetablished at 119,101 per year. « Department ",tablished in 1961. • Department eetablished in 1957• • Department established ill 1963; saI.a.ry of director established at 121,500 per year. TABLE IV AVERAGE SALARY DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN TOP LEVEL EXECUTIVES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES IN GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INDUSTRY l. New York State _______________________ 17.3 2. Los Angeles County_ ----------------- 23.4. 3. San Francisco City/County_ ____________ 20.5 4. Utilities-communications ______________ 40.01 5. Utilities-gas and electric ___ ---------- 37.01 6. Durable goods manufacturing __________ 38.01 7. Nondurable goods manufacturing_ _______ 4.1. 01 8. California State-existing _______ --___ -_ 3.3 1 Based on tbe 1967 AMA Top Management Reparl. TABLE V DIRECTOR'S SALARY COMPARED WITH SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE SUBORDINATES Level II II (chief Level III Level IV Difference between Difference between Difference between Level I deputy (division (bureau Level I and II Level I and III Level I and IV (director) director) chief} chief) monthly monthly monthly monthly Department salary salary salary salary Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Finance _______________ $31,835 $26,796 $26,232 $24,912 5,039 18.8 5,603 21.3 6,923 27.7 Mental Hygiene _______ 27,300 27,276 27,264 27,252 24 0.1 36 0.1 48 0.1 Public Health _________ 27,300 27,264 27,252 27,240 36 0.1 48 0.1 60 0.2 Employment __________ 25,725 23,712 21,516 19,512 2,013 8.4 4.,209 19.5 6,213 31.8 Public Works __________ 25,725 25,704 25,692 25,680 21 0.1 33 0.1 45 0.1 Social Welfare _________ 25,725 23,712 21,516 19,512 2,013 8.4 4,209 19.5 6,213 31.8 Water Hesources _______ 25,725 25,689 25,677 24,912 36 0.1 48 0.1 813 3.2 Agriculture ____________ 24,675 24,660 22,584 18,576 15 0.1 2,091 8.4 6,099 32.8 Corrections ___________ 24,675 24,660 24,648 21,000 15 0.1 27 0.1 3,675 17.5 General Services _______ 24,675 24,660 23,712 22,584 15 0.1 963 4.0 2,091 9.2 Franchise Tax _________ 23,625 23,604 20,496 18,576 21 0.1 3,129 15.2 5,049 27.1 Highway PatroL ----- 23,625 23,604 22,044 19,044 21 0.1 1,581 7.1 4,581 24.0 Industrial Relations ____ 24,675 22,044 22,044 18,576 2,631 11.9 2,631 11.9 6,099 32.8 Motor Vehicles ________ 24,675 24,660 21,516 18,576 • 15 0.1 3,159 14.6 6,099 32.8 Youth Authority _______ 24,675 24,660 23,712 22,584 15 0.1 963 4.0 2,091 9.2 Conservation __________ 23,625 23,604 22,584 20,496 21 0.1 1,041 4.6 3,129 15.2 Fish and Game ____ 23,625 23,604 20,496 18,576 21 0.1 3,129 15.2 5,049 27.1 Parks and Recreation __ 23,625 23,604 22,584 20,496 21 0.1 1,041 4.6 3,129 15.2 Rehabilitation _________ 23,625 22,584 20,496 17,700 1,041 4.6 3,129 15.2 5,925 33.4 Veterans Affairs _______ 23,625 21,516 18,576 16,860 2.109 9.8 5,049 27.1 6,765 40.1 Professional and Voca- tional Standards _____ 22,575 21,516 19,512 18,576 1,059 4.9 3,063 15.6 3,999 21.5 COMPACTION IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE SERVICE Tho attached table illustratee the ""I""y compaction problem in the California State Service lIB of July I, 1968. This table represent. the largest 21 state ageneies. (Departments with elected heade were exeluded.) Tbeye.elude medical positio"" except where top-line management is headed by & medical doctor, 88 in the Department of Public Health. Comparisons of salaries are made at their ltJaximum only. These comparisons are between four management levels. Typically, these are: Levell - The director (usually appointive). Level II - The chief deputy director (usually exempt). Level III-The division cblef or aasistant director (usually civil service), Level IV - The bureau chief or _i.tant division chief (usually civil service). At Level II, III, or IV, if more than one claosification exists in an agency, a single repl'l!l!elltativo claasification is shown. A salary at any onolev. Jacm 88. ceiling upon the salary ..' the next lower level in an organization. 19 APPENDIX II RONALD REAGAN &tatt of (!!Ultfnrntu Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE Sacramento 95814 April 9, 1968 Mr. William Holmes Chairman Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy 110 South A Street Madera, California 93637 Dear Bill: Compaction in the salary structure of the executive branch of State Govern ment is now an acute problem. A review and evaluation of the executive compen sation system is urgently needed. Therefore, I am asking your Commission to undertake this study and to report your findings to me and the State Legislature by February 1, 1969. To assist the Commission in its work, I am requesting by a copy of this letter that the California State Personnel Board and the Department of Finance direct their staff to pro"ide technical assistance for the Commission. Sincerely, RONALD REAGAN Governor 21 RESOLUTION CHAPTER 224 Assembly ConCltrrent Resolution No. l05-Relative to executive compensation in state service. [Filed with Secretary of State July 31, 1968.] WHEREAS, The Legislature has established the policy that like salaries shall be paid for comparable duties and responsibilities in state service, with con sideration given to the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public employment and in private business; and WHEREAS, The current differential in compensation of superior and subordi nate state executives is grossly inadequate to recognize substantial differences in responsibility, to the point where the difference in monthly salary between the director and the chief deputy director of 14 state departments is less than $2; and WHEREAS, The State Personnel Board reported to the Legislature in its An nual Report on State Salaries and Personnel Management, dated December 1, 1967, that the current compensation for state executives is substantially below that of executives with similar responsibilities in local government in California and in other state governments; and WHEREAS, The Report on Management Manpower Requirements by the Com mission on California State Government Organization and Economy, dated February 1965, recommended substantial changes in the approach to establish ing and maintaining executive compensation in state government; and WHEREAS, Accepted practice in private industry requires a systematic and equitable approach to executive compensation; and WHEREAS, Authority to establish executive salaries in state government is divided among the Legislature, the Department of Finance, the State Personnel Board and other duly constituted salary-setting authorities; and WHEREAS, Levels of compensation which adequately reflect differing levels of responsibility are a critical source of motivation and recognition for the creative leadership which is essential to effective state government; now, there fore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Sena.te thereof con curring, That the Legislature requests the Commission on California State Gov ernment Organization and Economy to review and evaluate the executive compensation system in state government and report its findings and recom mendations to the Legislature within 30 days of the commencement of the 1969 Regular Session; and be it further Resolved, That the California State Personnel Board and the Department of Finance are requested to direct their staffs to provide such technical assistance for the commission as is necessary; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit a copy of this reso lution to the Chairman of the Commission on California State Government Or ganization and Economy. 22 APPENDIX III References A. Reports 2. Civil Service Commission of San Francisco, 1. Theodore Barry and Associates, Los Angeles Salary and Wage Survey, January 1968. County Executive Compensation Study, De 3. State of Illinois, Summary Report Department cember 4,1967. of Personnel, Wage and Salary Survey, 1966. 2. California State Assembly, Report of the As 4. State of Maryland, Salary Survey of Executive sembly Interim Committee on Civil Service and and Management Classes, October 1968. State Personnel (House Resolution No. 200), January 1955. C. Other Sources 3. Commission on California State Government 1. Albert A. Belman, "Trends in Salaries of Clas Organization and Economy, Management Man sified Workers", Monthly Labor Review, July power Requirements California State Govern 1968. ment, February 1965. 4. McKinsey and Company, Inc., Report to the 2. John J. Corson, Public Executive Compensa tion (Excerpts of a speech delivered at the 1963 Honorable Nelson J. Rockefeller, January 13, Institute on Pay Plans held by the Public Per 1961. sonnel Association). 5. Los Angeles County Citizens Economy and Ef ficiency Committee, Executive Compensation in 3. Ijouis J. Kroeger, "Executive Pay Reform Los Angeles County Government, May 1968. A Top Priority" Public Personnel Review, 6. Clarence B. Randall, A Businessman Looks at October 1965. Government Pay, .J anuary 1962. 4. New York State Civil Service Department, 7. Salaries of statutory officials in California State Classification and Compensation Plan and Sal Service-A Report to Assembly Interim Com ary Schedules, July 1968. mittee on Civil Service and State Personnel by the State Personnel Board, Department of Fi 5. Public Law 90-206 (Postal Revenue and Sal ary Act of 1967) Section 225 "Commission on nance and the Legislative Auditor, 1954. Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries," B. Surveys December 1967. 1. American Management Association, Executive 6. Program statements for all State departments Compensation Service, Top Management Re studied. These were provided by the Depart port, 18th Edition, November 1967. ment of Finance. o jJri"teJ itS CALIPOI.HJA OFFICB OF STArK PUNTING 78152--404 12-68 1]4