• No results found

In reviewing these materials, SCERS would respectfully ask that the reader keep the following in mind:

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "In reviewing these materials, SCERS would respectfully ask that the reader keep the following in mind:"

Copied!
45
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

John B. Kelly, First Vice President Appointed by the Board of Supervisors William D. Johnson, Second Vice President Elected by the Safety Members Diana Gin Elected by the Miscellaneous Members Winston H. Hickox Appointed by the Board of Supervisors Kathy O’Neil

Executive Staff: Elected by the Miscellaneous Members

Richard Stensrud Julie Valverde

Chief Executive Officer Ex Officio, Director of Finance

James G. Line Nancy Wolford-Landers

General Counsel Elected by the Retired Members

Kathryn T. Regalia John Conneally

Chief Operations Officer Elected by the Safety Members

John W. Gobel, Sr. Michael DeBord

Chief Benefits Officer Elected by the Retired Members

P.O. Box 627, Sacramento, CA 95812-0627 • Office (916) 874-9119 • Toll Free (800) 336-1711 • Facsimile (916) 874-6060

The Sacramento Bee has recently reported on a compensation study that was submitted to the

SCERS Board concerning the salary levels for SCERS’ executive staff positions (i.e., the Chief

Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel, Chief Benefits Officer, Chief

Operations Officer and Deputy Chief Investment Officer). The attached materials are intended to

provide interested parties with the information that was considered by the SCERS Board in

deciding to approve the salary adjustments recommended in the compensation study.

In reviewing these materials, SCERS would respectfully ask that the reader keep the following in

mind:

• It is not easy or popular to address compensation issues in a tough economic environment,

and for that reason, SCERS has resisted doing so for the last few years even though

SCERS knew its salaries were falling behind SCERS’ competitive labor market.

Unfortunately, SCERS’ hand is now being forced by the need to replace a critical executive

team member. Without adjustments to SCERS’ seven year old salary ranges, SCERS will

not be able to compete successfully for the professional talent the participants in SCERS

want and deserve.

• SCERS is cognizant that the County has been facing budgetary challenges. However, the

state constitution imposes fiduciary responsibility on the SCERS’ Board in managing the

retirement system, and the fiduciary duty to SCERS’ participants and beneficiaries takes

“precedence over any other duty” (Article XVI, Section 17). Accordingly, when presented

with difficult decisions, SCERS must act with only one constituency in mind – i.e., what is

best for SCERS, its members and beneficiaries.

• If SCERS is not able to maintain the level of knowledge, skill and experience it has had in

its key leadership positions, SCERS’ history of success in carrying out its responsibilities

will be put at risk, to the detriment of active members, retirees, participating employers and

the taxpayers.

(2)

and will remain well below the statutory cap even with the salary adjustments. In addition,

actuarial assumptions regarding the cost to administer the system are built into the

retirement contribution rates that combine with investment earnings to fund the pension

trust. SCERS has historically administered the system at a lower cost than the actuarial

assumptions and the salary adjustments will not change this. Accordingly, there will be no

increase in retirement contribution rates, and no additional cost to participating employers

and employees, as a result of the salary adjustments.

• The salary adjustments will not impact the County’s budget, cause the County to cut

services or result in County employees being laid off. By contrast, maintaining a strong

leadership team at SCERS will help assure that SCERS continues to be well-funded and

prudently managed, which will benefit all SCERS’ stakeholders, including the taxpayers.

• The County’s budgetary challenges have not been caused by rising pension costs. Rather,

the budgetary problems have been caused by the substantial drop in residential property

values and a broad decline in tax revenue due to the faltering economy. In fact, the annual

increase in pension costs over the last five years has only been 1/3 of the annual increase

in costs in the five prior years.

SCERS hopes the information that follows is helpful for providing the full and proper context for its

compensation decision.

(3)

P.O. Box 627, Sacramento, CA 95812-0627 • Office (916) 874-9119 • Toll Free (800) 336-1711 • Facsimile (916) 874-6060 Richard Stensrud

Chief Executive Officer James G. Line

General Counsel Kathryn T. Regalia

Chief Operations Officer John W. Gobel, Sr.

Chief Benefits Officer

For Agenda of:

January 19, 2012

January 13, 2012

TO

:

President and Members

Board of Retirement

FROM

:

Richard Stensrud

Chief Executive Officer

SUBJECT

: Compensation Analysis for SCERS’ Executive Staff Positions

Recommendation:

That your Board: (1) Approve the recommended changes to the salary range for the

positions of Chief Benefits Officer, Chief Operations Officer, Deputy Chief

Investment Officer, General Counsel and Chief Investment Officer as set forth in the

compensation analysis prepared by Ralph Andersen & Associates; (2) Direct that

the salary range changes for all positions except the General Counsel position be

implemented in two equal components in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal years,

respectively; (3) Direct that implementation of the full salary range change for the

General Counsel position become effective upon the retirement of the current

General Counsel in March 2012; and (4) Direct the Chief Executive Officer to take the

steps necessary to secure implementation of the new salary ranges.

Background:

As you will recall, SCERS’ executive staff positions (Chief Executive Officer, Chief

Investment Officer, General Counsel, Deputy Chief Investment Officer, Chief Operations

Officer and Chief Benefits Officer) are outside of the County Civil Service structure. As you

will further recall, the authority to establish the duties of those positions, make decisions

concerning hiring and termination with respect to those positions, and to set the terms of

employment (including compensation) for those positions rests exclusively with your

Board. This is a function of the grant of plenary authority and the assignment of fiduciary

responsibility to your Board with respect to management of the retirement system under

the California Constitution. It is buttressed by the fact that SCERS’ budget is fully funded

(4)

by the pension trust and does not draw funds for that purpose from SCERS’ participating

employers.

Consistent with this grant of authority and assignment of responsibility, it has been the

history and practice at SCERS to periodically conduct a compensation analysis to

determine if the compensation plan for these executive positions will ensure that SCERS

has the ability to attract and retain well-qualified employees to carry out SCERS’

specialized line of business.

The last such analysis was presented to your Board in November 2004. The study was

conducted by a respected compensation consultant (Johnson & Associates) who had

conducted two previous compensation studies for SCERS, and it analyzed SCERS’

compensation relative to SCERS’ peers in the labor market – i.e., public pension systems

in California. The 2004 study concluded that the maximum salaries for SCERS’ executive

positions were 9.7% to 16.5% below the median market salaries for those positions. Your

Board approved the adjustment of the relevant salary ranges to bring them in line with the

median market salaries, and per my recommendation, those salary adjustments were

phased-in over a two year period, with the last equity adjustment occurring in 2006.

SCERS’ executive salary ranges have not been measured against the market since 2004.

SCERS’ executive positions have not received a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) since

2008. In all but one case, the incumbents in these positions had reached the top step in

the salary range by 2008 and have not had a salary increase since that time. In addition,

while not required to do so, SCERS’ executive staff voluntarily participated in the County

furlough protocol in 2009, resulting in a pay cut for that period.

During the same time frame (2006-2011) a substantial segment of the County workforce

received equity adjustments (in some cases more than one) and since 2008, a substantial

segment of the County workforce has also received COLAs. This latter group includes

some members of SCERS’ non-executive staff covered by bargaining agreements, who

have received 2% to 4.9% in COLAs since 2008. It is also interesting to note that since

2008 most SCERS’ retirees have received 4% to 5% in COLAs.

Although some people have experienced salary growth during this period, it is equally

clear that it has been a very challenging economic environment for many others. The

ramifications of the considerable decline in the investment markets in 2008 and 2009 have

been well-documented. With respect to the County, the substantial drop in residential

property values and the faltering economy have had a significant impact on County

revenue, resulting in furloughs and numerous layoffs in the County workforce. Thus, while I

have been concerned for a few years that SCERS was falling behind the market with

respect to compensation, given this environment, I did not deem it appropriate to pursue

equity adjustments or COLAs for SCERS’ executive staff.

Unfortunately, our hand is now being forced. In March, SCERS’ General Counsel is retiring

and we will have to go into the labor market to secure his successor. If we are forced to do

this with a salary range that is effectively seven years old, we will not be able to compete

(5)

successfully for individuals with the knowledge, skills and experience we want and need.

And if we are not able to maintain the quality we have had at such a critical position, it will

have a detrimental impact on our ability to be successful in carrying out our mission.

Accordingly, with these considerations in mind, I directed that a new total compensation

analysis be undertaken to determine where SCERS stands relative to the market with

respect to our executive positions. A copy of this report is attached to this memorandum

for your review and consideration and serves as the basis for the recommendations that

follow. A representative of the compensation consulting firm – Ralph Andersen &

Associates – will present the report at the meeting and will be available to answer any

questions you might have.

The firm engaged to perform the study is a respected compensation consultant, and in

fact, absorbed key principals of the firm that conducted SCERS’ previous compensation

studies (i.e., Johnson & Associates). The individual who supervised the previous analysis

conducted by Johnson & Associates – Doug Johnson – supervised the current project for

Ralph Andersen & Associates.

The process and methodology used in the current analysis is also the same as that used in

past compensation studies.

First, the consultant established a definition of the relevant labor market taking into

account criteria such as: (1) Recognizing the historical practices regarding labor market

comparables (e.g., who an employer typically compares itself to); (2) Assessing the

geographic size of the labor market (i.e., who an employer typically competes with for

employees); (3) Assuring that employers have an appropriate size and level of complexity

to provide comparable positions; (4) Assuring that the nature of services provided by

employers is comparable; and (5) Assessing the impact of economic considerations on an

employer’s compensation plan. Based on these considerations, the consultant determined

that public retirement systems in California represent the appropriate labor market.

The consultant then established various parameters for assuring that the labor market

positions are sufficiently comparable to the SCERS positions. Critical comparability criteria

included: (1) Similar education/skill requirements; (2) Similar level of duties; and

(3) Comparable level of supervisory and management responsibilities.

Next, the consultant looked at all elements of compensation and not simply salary. By

comparing all compensation elements, the consultant was able to determine whether and

to what extent compensation elements offset each other, and how compensation as a

whole compares.

Then the consultant adjusted the compensation elements to neutralize the impact that

higher cost-of-living locations can have on compensation levels.

(6)

Finally, the consultant took the outcome of the external analysis and adjusted it to reflect

the internal compensation relationships and guidelines that have been previously

established by your Board. Those include:

Salaries for SCERS’ executive positions should be set at the labor market median as

determined by the consultant.

The salaries for the Chief Benefits Officer (CBO) and Chief Operations Officer (COO)

should be set at the labor market median for the CBO.

The salary for the Deputy Chief Investment Officer should be set at the same level as

the CBO and COO.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should be used as the benchmark class for the

Chief Investment Officer (CIO).

There should be an internal equity relationship between the CEO and CIO in which the

salary for the CIO is 15% below the salary for the CEO.

For purposes of the current study, I requested that the consultant make an additional

internal adjustment regarding the General Counsel salary.

When the General Counsel position was added to SCERS’ executive staff in 2006, the

salary for the position was set between the CBO/COO and the CIO. The General Counsel

salary was not based on a formal compensation study, but did take into account the salary

range then in effect for comparable positions at other public retirement systems. In

addition, the salary was set with the goal of maintaining equity between the new position

and the other positions on the executive team. While the professional training and

experience required of the General Counsel would arguably be on a par with that required

of a CIO, at the time SCERS had a long-tenured CIO and the General Counsel position

was new to the organization. Out of respect for the incumbent CIO and with a measure of

confidence that we could successfully fill the General Counsel position at a lower salary,

the General Counsel compensation was set slightly below the CIO.

Since that time, the role, responsibilities and importance of the General Counsel have

been clearly established. Moreover, as previously noted, SCERS will shortly have to begin

recruitment for a new General Counsel capable of meeting the expectations we now have

for the position. Since the CIO position is currently vacant, it appears to be an opportune

time to ‘re-mark’ the General Counsel salary to the same level as the CIO. This will not

only improve our chances for successfully recruiting a new General Counsel, but will also

establish an internal equity relationship that reflects the comparable knowledge, skills and

experience required of the two positions.

(7)

Discussion:

The current monthly maximum salary, the market median, the recommended new monthly

maximum and the percent change in the monthly maximum for each of SCERS’ executive

positions is set forth in Exhibit F on page 11 of the Ralph Andersen & Associates report.

As you will see, the recommended changes are all in the neighborhood of 13%, except for

the General Counsel position which will increase more for the reasons noted above.

I am recommending that your Board approve the new salary levels presented by Ralph

Andersen & Associates for all of the executive staff positions except for the CEO. I am not

comfortable making a recommendation regarding my own compensation, and instead, will

defer to the judgment of your Board in this regard.

I am further recommending that if your Board chooses to approve the salary ranges

recommended by Ralph Andersen & Associates, that for all positions other than the

General Counsel, the change in salary range be implemented in two equal components,

with one component implemented in the current fiscal year and the second component

implemented at approximately the same point in the next fiscal year.

With respect to the General Counsel position, I am recommending that the full change in

the salary range be implemented upon the retirement of the current General Counsel in

March. Implementing the full change at that time will enhance our ability to attract a strong

candidate pool for the position. In addition, it will remove any potential criticism that the

current General Counsel is receiving a late-in-career compensation ‘spike.’

I have confirmed that there is sufficient funding in the current budget to accommodate the

proposed first stage salary adjustment. Those adjustments will increase the salary and

benefits component of the current budget by less than 1% and thus will have no

discernable impact on the overall administrative budget. Accordingly, the overall

administrative budget will remain at 9/100s of one percent of system liabilities, which is

well below the 1937 Act administrative budget cap of 21/100s of one percent of liabilities.

Future budgets will be constructed based on the new salary levels, and it is expected that

the impact will be nominal.

I am cognizant that the recommended salary changes could elicit criticism. However, in

executing my day-to-day responsibility for managing SCERS and successfully

accomplishing our mission, it is incumbent on me to advise your Board when I believe our

ability to do so will be adversely impacted. Our primary legal duty as fiduciaries is to act in

the best interests of the participants in our plan. If we are not able to maintain the level of

knowledge, skill and experience we have had in key leadership positions in the

organization, our history of success in carrying out our responsibilities will be put at risk, to

the detriment of our active members, retirees and participating employers.

(8)

I would also note (and in some cases reiterate) the following considerations:

The proposed salary adjustments will have no impact on the funding provided by either

participating employers or employees. Actuarial assumptions regarding the cost to

administer the system are built into the normal cost component of the retirement

contribution rates. SCERS has historically administered the system at a lower cost than

the actuarial assumptions. The salary adjustments will not alter this. Accordingly, there

will be no increase in retirement contribution rates, and no additional cost to the County

or other participating employers as a result of adjustments.

For similar reasons, there will be no impact on the funded status of the retirement

system due to the proposed salary adjustments. SCERS will continue to have a strong

87% funded status.

I would respectfully submit that over the last few years, SCERS’ executive team has

done an excellent job in leading this organization’s efforts to do ‘more with less.’

Retirement activity has increased by more than 25%; in the last two fiscal years, the

investment program has generated returns of 13.9% and 22.7%, respectively, thereby

substantially reducing the impact of the market decline in 2008 and 2009; meanwhile,

the administrative budget has increased only marginally. As previously noted, during

the same period, SCERS’ executive team has had no salary growth, and even

experienced a period of salary reduction.

The proposed salary adjustments are not ‘out of line’ with the salary adjustments that

have been applied to substantial segments of the County workforce over the past five

to seven years. Nor should the level of proposed adjustments be surprising given the

length of time since the last salary adjustments.

As previously noted, a decision to not adjust the salary levels will hamstring SCERS’

ability to recruit a new General Counsel with the knowledge, skills and experience we

want and need. It will also leave SCERS vulnerable to having executive staff members

leave to work in systems that are providing compensation at current market levels. The

potential deterioration of what has been a strong executive team can have a long term

negative impact on the performance of the system.

Because of this risk, I am recommending that the proposed salary adjustments for all

the executive positions (exclusive of the CEO, as previously noted) be implemented in

one decision rather than addressed ‘piece-meal’ over time. While the General Counsel

position will likely be the first position where the new salary ranges will have a positive

impact, the problems related to the current salary ranges extends across the executive

team. For that reason, and to maintain fairness and equity internally, I am

recommending approval of all the proposed adjustments.

A decision to not adjust salary levels now, will only delay the inevitable. At some point,

SCERS will have to re-set its compensation levels to the market if it hopes to be

(9)

competitive in recruiting and retaining top tier executive staff. The longer SCERS waits

to make the necessary adjustments, the larger the ultimate adjustments will be, and the

harder it will be to make them.

I believe that the total compensation study by Ralph Andersen & Associates presents a

technically sound and clear picture of where SCERS stands relative to the market with

respect to our executive staff compensation. I further believe that the salary ranges

recommended in the report are fair and equitable from both an internal and external

perspective. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, and notwithstanding the criticism

that may ensue, I respectfully request that your Board approve the recommended actions

set forth herein.

As always, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Respectfully,

Richard Stensrud

Chief Executive Officer

Attachment

(10)

A T r a d i t i o n o f E x c e l l e n c e S i n c e 1 9 7 2

5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 410, Rocklin, California 95765 Phone: 916/630-4900 Fax: 916/630-4911 Website: www.ralphandersen.com

January 13, 2012

To: Richard Stensrud, Chief Executive Officer

Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System

From: Doug Johnson, Vice President

Ralph Andersen & Associates

Regarding: 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations

The purpose of this memorandum is to report the results of the total compensation survey recently conducted for the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System (SCERS) involving five of the agency’s management job classifications. This report presents the results of the total compensation survey and provides salary recommendations for the four survey classes.

Key Policy Considerations

The SCERS compensation plan is an important tool in recruiting and retaining staff, especially given the specialized nature of SCERS jobs. Overall, SCERS’ compensation plan should:

 Ensure that SCERS has the ability to attract and retain well-qualified employees

 Provide a defensible and technically sound basis for compensating employees

 Allow flexibility and adaptability for making compensation decisions based on changing market conditions

 Establish fair and equitable salary levels for SCERS jobs from an internal and external perspective.

This specific study was designed to achieve the following overall objectives:

 Confirm SCERS’ compensation policies including the confirmation of labor market agencies

 Develop a survey data collection form and conduct a total compensation survey using the identified comparable agencies

 Analyze the market data and document comparisons with SCERS’ compensation plan

 Conduct an internal relationship analysis and develop internal relationship guidelines

 Present specific salary recommendations based on the results of the market survey and internal relationship analysis.

(11)

The primary objective of the compensation survey and subsequent analysis is to provide a “picture” of wage practices in the labor market for comparable jobs. Additionally, the compensation survey documents how SCERS’ management classifications compare to similar employers in terms of compensation. The results of the compensation survey provide a basis for compensating employees in a consistent, equitable, defensible and competitive manner.

Labor Market Definition

One of the most important policy components of a compensation plan is a definition of the labor market within which SCERS must compete. There are typically five important criteria utilized in identifying those employers that comprise an agency’s labor market. They are:

Historical Practices – Over time, an employer will develop some level of continuity regarding labor market comparables for the purposes of conducting compensation surveys. There may be a strong history of surveying a specific set of employers either by agreement or by practice. In some instances, survey agencies can be more formally defined by policy documents or memorandums of understanding. Historical practices are an important consideration if for no other reason than deviating from a long term historical practice typically requires a strong, defensible rationale

Geographic Proximity – Geographic proximity of potential employers is a major

factor utilized in identifying an organization’s labor market. This factor is particularly important because it identifies those employers that directly compete with SCERS to recruit and retain personnel. If a sufficient number of comparable agencies exist within close proximity to SCERS, the defined geographic area may be confined to a one, two or “surrounding” county region. If insufficient comparables exist locally, a more extensive statewide or surrounding state market may be required.

Employer Size – As a rule, the more similar employers are in size and complexity, the

greater the likelihood that comparable positions exist within both organizations.

Nature of Services Provided – In order to ensure comparable jobs are found when

conducting a market survey, it is important to utilize employers that provide similar services to SCERS. Recognizing that SCERS provides services that are unique to selected California counties, cities, and special districts, the selection of labor market agencies cannot be based exclusively on geographic region and employer size. This factor recognizes that employers who provide similar services are most likely to compete with one another for employees, have similar jobs, and share organizational and economic characteristics.

Economic Similarity — While there are a number of economic factors that can be

compared among agencies, the most important factor related to compensation is cost of living or the relative differences in labor costs (wage differential). In some regions or states, living costs can vary significantly and have an important impact on how potential candidates evaluate compensation. This factor is important if labor market agencies are used beyond the local market.

Using these factors, the survey agencies should focus on other employees’ retirement systems within the State of California.

(12)

Labor Market Survey Agencies

Exhibit A presents the survey agencies that were utilized for the management classifications included in this study. These agencies represent comparable retirement systems throughout California.

Exhibit A - Survey Agencies

Agency Total Assets Total

Membership

ERI COL

ERI Wage

Alameda County ERA $5.2 billion 20,244 115.9 109.7 Contra Costa County ERA $5.2 billion 18,601 107.5 110.1 Fresno County ERA $2.5 billion 13,940 94.6 97.2 Kern County ERA $2.6 billion 16,613 96.3 99.0 City of Los Angeles ERS $10.4 billion 43,500 127.6 105.3 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System N/A N/A 151.5 105.8 Los Angeles Water & Power ERP N/A N/A 151.5 105.8 Los Angeles County Retirement System $36.1 billion 156,519 151.5 105.8 Marin County ERA $1.4 billion 5,709 133.7 113.1 Orange County ERS $10.4 billion 38,861 112.7 104.7 PERS $228.6 billion 1,629,667 100.0 100.0 San Bernardino County ERA $6.1 billion 31,998 97.3 99.5 City of San Diego ERS $4.7 billion 20,066 116.9 101.3 San Diego County ERA $6.9 billion 37,000 116.9 101.3 City & County of San Francisco ERS $13.1 billion 51,722 148.8 114.5 San Joaquin County ERA $1.7 billion 11,577 94.2 95.9 San Mateo County ERA $1.8 billion 10,556 136.8 113.8 Sonoma County ERA $1.8 billion 8,464 115.8 103.6 State Teachers' Retirement System $154.3 billion 852,316 100.0 100.0 Tulare County ERA $995 million 8,288 96.0 96.1 Ventura County ERA $3.2 billion 15,500 108.5 104.8

SCERS $5.9 billion 24,426 100.0 100.0

Cost of living (ERI COL) and wage differential (ERI Wage) data are provided as a reference and are from the Economic Research Institute. Because the SCERS market is statewide, there will be significant differences in cost of living among some of the survey employers.

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System and Los Angeles Water & Power ERP declined to participate in the survey.

Labor Market Position

Considering that the recommended survey agencies represent both a comprehensive and balanced set of employers, it is recommended that all initial analyses be based on the labor market median (defined as the “middle” of the labor market). The median statistic will not be significantly skewed with the addition of some larger or smaller survey agencies. Ultimately, when establishing SCERS’ desired labor market position, some key elements for consideration will include:

(13)

 SCERS’ ability to pay

 Historical practices

 Priority of compensation versus other expenditures

 Recruitment and retention of qualified staff.

A solid, defensible labor market position will rely on a balancing of these factors in order to meet SCERS’ compensation goals and objectives.

Market Data Collection Process

After the recommended labor market agencies and survey classes were confirmed, the project consultants collected and compiled total compensation data. To ensure reliability and completeness of data collected, survey data was collected according to a structured methodology. In conducting the total compensation survey, the following specific steps were taken:

 An initial telephone call was made to each labor market employer to explain the scope of the study, confirm participation and request general background information including current salary schedules, organizational charts and benefits information as available.

 A compensation and benefits survey packet was prepared to provide a structured method for collecting data. The information packet included:

- A written profile for each survey classification - A list of the required survey information.

 As available, salary schedules, organizational charts and other documentation were analyzed for each survey agency in order to determine comparability issues and audit the completed surveys.

 Telephone interviews were conducted with each survey agency to verify, clarify and identify comparable survey classes and to ensure the accuracy of the survey data.

Throughout the data collection process, careful efforts were made to document the full range of duties and requirements of all job classes as compared to SCERS’ corresponding survey classes. Significant time was allowed for survey participation, however, two agencies declined to participate.

Establishing Job Comparabilities

When conducting labor market surveys, one of the most critical objectives is to ensure that the labor market jobs are sufficiently comparable to SCERS jobs while also serving as a strong indicator of market trends. Since the purpose of the labor market analysis is to identify general wage trends with other agencies, broad comparability guidelines are used when collecting data. If the comparability guidelines are too narrow, then insufficient data will be found in the market that may not be a realistic “picture” of market wage trends.

Critical comparability criteria typically includes similar education/skill requirements, similar level of duties, and comparable level of supervisory and management duties. It is not as critical for all job duties to be the same or for the number of employees supervised to be the same. Furthermore, it is not essential that a comparable market job use the same equipment, have the

(14)

same workload, or work in an identical facility. While Ralph Andersen & Associates has been careful not to include “gross” comparisons, there will be some variability in the job matches. In some instances, a comparable market job may exceed the responsibilities and duties of SCERS’ job and in other cases the market job may perform duties at a slightly lower level. Overall, the market comparabilities are intended to provide an indication of market trends.

The data sheets presented in Appendix A contain job matches that are sufficiently comparable based on the professional judgment of Ralph Andersen & Associates. Wherever possible, comparability similarities and differences are supported by survey forms and other documentation received from the survey participants. However, it should be noted that job descriptions were not used as a primary basis for establishing comparabilities due to their unreliability and the inconsistent formats used in the survey agencies. Many agencies are unable to sufficiently maintain and update their job descriptions while other agencies use job description formats that provide little insight into the actual job duties of the class. In addition, requiring public agencies to copy and send a large number of job descriptions is burdensome and costly, and some agencies refuse to provide copies to an outside consulting firm.

The term “No Comparable Class” has been used in the data sheets in Appendix A to indicate instances where the job does not exist within the survey agency, the level of responsibilities/duties are not sufficiently comparable, or the comparable job duties are spread among several job classifications.

Statistics Used in Analyzing the Market Data

The salary survey data has been analyzed using a variety of statistical measures that are standards in compensation analysis. The purpose of the statistics is to describe the data and identify data trends that can be used to describe the labor market. The three most common statistics used in analyzing compensation data include:

Mean (average) – This is a common statistical measure in which the market data is summed and divided by the number of agencies in which data is reported. While this is a valuable statistical measure, it is not stable for data sets of less than 30 agencies. In addition, this statistic can be significantly skewed by a significantly high or low paying agency that may not represent the entire sample.

Median – This statistic is based on the ranking of the data and represents the “middle”

of the data set; as such, half of the data is above the median and half is below. This is the most stable statistical measure of the market, even for highly variable data sets, and is not skewed by unusually high or low payers.

75th Percentile (3rd quartile) – This is also a rank based statistic in which one quarter of the data is above the 75th percentile and three quarters of the data are below this point. This statistic effectively captures the high end of the data set, however, it is not as stable a measure as the median. Since the relationship between the median and the 75th percentile is based both on the ranking and on variability of the data, no consistent percentage relationship exists between these statistics.

All statistical comparisons are based on market control point salaries/range maximums. The data sheets presented in Appendix A provide additional statistical information as well as the minimum salary levels for reference purposes.

(15)

Overall Salary Survey Results – Base Pay

Based on an evaluation of the survey data, general salary trends in the market place have been identified. A summary of the salary survey comparisons of comparable retirement agencies is provided in Exhibit B. This summary table includes:

 The class title of each benchmark class

 The number of observations (matches), not including SCERS’ data

 SCERS’ current top step salary

 The labor market median, based on monthly control point/top step salaries in the labor market

 The percentage relationship of the labor market median to the top step for SCERS’ classification.

Exhibit B

Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System

Summary of Labor Market Data

Class Title # of Obs. Current Salary Median Percent +/- Median

Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO 13 10,812 13,356 -23.53% Asst. Retirement Admin./COO 15 10,812 12,501 -15.62% Chief Investment Officer 13 12,712 16,013 -25.97% General Counsel 8 11,743 16,818 -43.22% Retirement Administrator/CEO 19 14,618 18,022 -23.29%

Survey data was also collected for Assistant Retirement Administrator - Investments, however insufficient comparables were found in the labor market (only two larger agencies had comparable jobs). In analyzing the question of “market relationship”, the survey jobs were ranked from high-to-low in terms of each survey classification’s salary relationship to the labor market median (i.e. percent above/below the median). Of the five survey classes, all are below the labor market median ranging from -15.62% to -43.22%. It should be noted that the data for General Counsel represents a market anomaly in that only eight of the survey agencies have an in-house job classification that serves as a match.

Total Compensation Analysis

In order to provide SCERS with a more accurate assessment of how its compensation plan compares with those of other retirement agencies, Ralph Andersen & Associates was asked to gather and analyze total compensation expenditures for each survey agency’s comparable class. All comparisons of SCERS to the labor market agencies are based on the labor market median.

(16)

The total compensation data presented in Appendix B of this report is broken into four categories:

Base Salary – This column contains base salary range maximum data for each agency

where a comparable job was identified.

Cash Supplements – These columns display the following cash equivalent benefits:

- deferred compensation paid by the employer - education incentives for advanced degrees/training - longevity pay

- car allowances

- retirement pick-up paid by the employer on behalf of the employee - other cash benefits.

A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary and cash supplements for each employer.

Insurances – These columns show the maximum employer contribution for the

following insurance benefits:

- health insurance, including dependent coverage as provided - dental insurance

- vision insurance - life insurance

- long term disability insurance (LTD) - other health insurance costs.

A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary, cash supplements and insurances for each employer.

Retirement – These columns provide the employer retirement contributions to the

following programs:

- employer mandated portion of the retirement contribution

- Social Security and Medicare contributions for participating agencies.

A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary, cash supplements, insurances, and retirement contributions for each employer. Since this sum includes all benefits, it also represents the total compensation provided to the survey class.

Summary Table of Total Compensation Trends

The summary information presented in Exhibit C has been extracted from the detailed total compensation data sheets presented in Appendix B. The non-shaded columns in the table present the percentage relationship between SCERS’ cumulative compensation for each benefit category and the median of the market agencies. The percentages provided in the non-shaded

(17)

columns can be seen in each of the individual total compensation data sheets provided in Appendix B.

In order to provide a more meaningful summary of market total compensation trends, shaded columns have been added to show the percentage gain/loss between each compensation component. For example:

 The base salary relationship for the class of Assistant Retirement Administrator/Chief Benefits Officer indicates that SCERS is 23.5% below the market median.

 When cash supplements (deferred compensation, education incentives, longevity pay, car allowances and retirement pick-up amounts) are added to base pay, SCERS is 25.8% below the market median, which is a 2.3% loss (-25.8% minus -23.5% equals -2.3%).

 When insurances (the maximum an employer will pay for health, dental, vision, life, long-term disability and any other insurances) are added to base salary and cash supplements, SCERS gains market position by 2.5% (-23.4% minus -25.8% equals 2.5%).

 When retirement (the employers portion of retirement and other retirement costs) is added to base salary, cash supplements, and insurances, SCERS gains market position by 7.3% due to retirement (-16.1% minus -23.4% equals 7.3%). Since this sum includes all benefits, it represents the total compensation provided to the survey class.

 When total compensation for the Assistant Retirement Administrator/Chief Benefits Officer is compared back to base salary, SCERS gains market position by a total of 7.4% (-16.1% minus -23.5% equals 7.4%).

On average, SCERS’ management classes gain 5.6% in market position when benefits are taken into consideration, almost all of which is due to a higher employer retirement contribution as

Exhibit C

SCERS - Total Compensation Summary

Survey Class

Base Base+Cash Base+Cash+ Insurance Base+Cash+Insur. + Retirement (Total Comp) Total Gain/ Loss Market Rel. (a) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b)

Asst. Ret. Admin./CBO -23.5% -25.8% -2.3% -23.4% 2.5% -16.1% 7.3% 7.4% Asst.Ret. Admin./COO -15.6% -21.1% -5.4% -14.2% 6.8% -8.8% 5.5% 6.8% Chief Investment Officer -26.0% -24.3% 1.6% -25.5% -1.2% -18.6% 7.0% 7.4% General Counsel -43.2% -42.3% 0.9% -39.4% 2.9% -36.7% 2.7% 6.5% Ret. Administrator/CEO -23.3% -18.8% 4.5% -20.5% -1.7% -23.5% -3.0% -0.2%

Average -26.3% -26.5% -0.1% -24.6% 1.9% -20.7% 3.9% 5.6%

(a) Reflects SCERS’ relationship to the labor market median for selected categories of total compensation (b) Reflects SCERS’ position gain/loss for each new category of total compensation considered

(18)

compared to the market agencies. No significant benefit differences are apparent based on the total compensation analysis.

Cost of Living/Economic Differences

Since there are significant differences in cost of living across the State of California, Exhibit D provides the Adjusted Total Compensation Summary (source data sheets provided in Appendix B). Exhibit D has adjusted market data using the Economic Research Institute (ERI) Wage Differential Index (shown previously in Exhibit A). This index is used to adjust for market difference in wages and is designed for this purpose. While cost of living differences are also shown in Exhibit A, cost of living differences should not be used to adjust wages since they reflect living costs, not labor costs.

Exhibit D

SCERS – Adjusted Total Compensation Summary

Data Adjusted Using ERI Wage Differential Index

Survey Class

Base Base+Cash Base+Cash+ Insurance Base+Cash+Insur. + Retirement (Total Comp) Total Gain/ Loss Market Rel. (a) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b)

Asst. Ret. Admin./CBO -10.7% -15.4% -4.6% -16.3% -0.9% -9.7% 6.5% 1.0% Asst.Ret. Admin./COO -8.9% -15.5% -6.7% -9.0% 6.5% -7.0% 2.0% 1.9% Chief Investment Officer -14.8% -13.3% 1.5% -14.4% -1.1% -6.1% 8.4% 8.8% General Counsel -33.7% -32.6% 1.1% -29.8% 2.9% -27.0% 2.8% 6.7% Ret. Administrator/CEO -14.4% -12.7% 1.7% -9.8% 2.9% -12.5% -2.8% 1.9%

Average -16.5% -17.9% -1.4% -15.9% 2.1% -12.5% 3.4% 4.0%

(c) Reflects SCERS’ relationship to the labor market median for selected categories of total compensation (d) Reflects SCERS’ position gain/loss for each new category of total compensation considered

(19)

As indicated in Exhibit D, there is an 8.3% to 9.8 reduction in the market deviation between current SCERS salary and benefits the adjusted market data (difference in averages between Exhibit D and Exhibit C). These differences can be factored into salary setting policies, as appropriate.

Salary Recommendations

In addition to market data, it is equally important to consider internal salary relationships both across similar jobs and between supervisory and subordinate jobs. Recognizing the importance of market and internal equity, Exhibits E and F provide recommended salary levels for each SCERS job title included in the scope of this study. Exhibit provides salary range recommendations using non-adjusted market data while Exhibit F adjusts the market data by 9% to account for regional market differences.

The objective of a market-based compensation study is to identify wage differences for selected “benchmark” classes. Benchmark classes are jobs that are easily compared with the pay practices of other agencies and are directly comparable to SCERS jobs. In order to establish market equity, benchmark classes are placed into a salary range based on the labor market data. Since the benchmark classes serve as the basis for any internal relationship guidelines, the entire pay plan is anchored to the labor market data.

For non-benchmark classifications, salary levels are established using internal relationship guidelines among related job classes. This process not only maximizes the use of available market data but also preserves important salary relationships. For General Counsel, we have not used the market data due to the limited number of comparables. Instead, we have established a salary level based on an internal relationship tie to the Assistant Retirement Administrator job classes. Due to the insufficient data found for Assistant Retirement Administrator – Investments, the salary for this job has been set using internal relationship alignment.

Exhibit E

SCERS - Recommended Salary Levels (no market adjustment)

Job Title Current Monthly Max Market Median (Benchmarks) Recomm. Monthly Max Percent

Change Explanation for Adjustment

Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $13,356 $13,356 23.5% Benchmark; set to market

Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $10,812 $13,356 23.5% Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Chief Investment Officer $12,712 $15,671 23.3% 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv $10,812 $13,356 23.5% Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO General Counsel $11,743 $15,671 33.5% 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Retirement Administrator/CEO $14,618 $18,022 $18,022 23.3% Benchmark; set to market

(20)

Exhibit F

SCERS - Recommended Salary Levels (adjusted 9% for regional differences)

Job Title Current Monthly Max Market Median (Benchmarks) Recomm. Monthly Max Percent

Change Explanation for Adjustment

Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $12,253 $12,253 13.3% Benchmark; set to market

Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $10,812 $12,253 13.3% Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Chief Investment Officer $12,712 $14,377 13.1% 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv $10,812 $12,253 13.3% Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO General Counsel $11,743 $14,377 22.4% 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Retirement Administrator/CEO $14,618 $16,534 $16,534 13.1% Benchmark; set to market



The above report presents the results of the total compensation study and salary recommendations for the five survey classes as of June, 2011.

(21)

A-1

A

PPENDIX

A

B

ASE

S

ALARY

L

ABOR

(22)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Member Services $ 13,039 $ 19,559

Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013

Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $ 9,584 $ 14,507

City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $ 11,427 $ 14,197

Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, Internal $ 13,790

San Mateo County ERA Assistant Executive Officer/Benefits Mgr $ 10,900 $ 13,625

San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $ 9,599 $ 13,356

City & County of San Francisco ERS Manager IV $ 8,829 $ 11,267

SCERS Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $ 8,895 $ 10,812

Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $ 8,844 $ 10,801

PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Benefits Admin $ 9,544 $ 10,520

Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Benefits Manager $ 7,943 $ 9,654

State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment III $ 8,594 $ 9,476

Ventura County ERA Retirement Operations Manager $ 5,768 $ 8,076

City of San Diego ERS No Comparable Class

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

Marin County ERA No Comparable Class

San Joaquin County ERA No Comparable Class

Sonoma County ERA No Comparable Class

Tulare County ERA No Comparable Class

% Above/ Number of Observations 13 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median 10812 $ 13,356 -23.53%

40th Percentile $ 12,103 -11.94%

60th Percentile $ 13,658 -26.32%

75th Percentile $ 14,197 -31.31%

Labor Market Mean 34 $ 12,680 -17.28%

SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 34th Percentile34th Percentile

Footnotes

Orange County ERS - position vacant used actual salary of Asst CEO External; range 110,864-222,560 Alameda County ERA - Retirement Benefits Manager - 6869-11326

Contra Costa County ERA - rprts to Retirement CEO

(23)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./COO

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Fiscal Services $ 13,039 $ 19,559

City of San Diego ERS Assistant Retirement Administrator/CFO $ 17,328

Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013

Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $ 9,584 $ 14,507

City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $ 11,427 $ 14,197

Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, External $ 13,790

San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $ 9,599 $ 13,356

Marin County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 10,284 $ 12,501

Ventura County ERA Chief Financial Officer $ 8,810 $ 12,334

SCERS Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $ 8,895 $ 10,812

Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $ 8,844 $ 10,801

Sonoma County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 8,660 $ 10,524

PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Operations $ 9,544 $ 10,520

State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment V $ 9,544 $ 10,520

Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Accounting Manager $ 7,943 $ 9,654

Tulare County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 6,827 $ 8,415

City & County of San Francisco ERS No Comparable Class

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

San Joaquin County ERA No Comparable Class

San Mateo County ERA No Comparable Class

% Above/ Number of Observations 15 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median 10812 $ 12,501 -15.62%

40th Percentile $ 12,384 -14.54%

60th Percentile $ 13,530 -25.14%

75th Percentile $ 14,352 -32.74%

Labor Market Mean 36 $ 12,935 -19.63%

SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 36th Percentile36th Percentile

Footnotes

Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 110,864-222,560

Fresno County ERA - Asst Retirement Admin - 6138-11078 - over benefits, IT, and Accting City & County of San Francisco ERS - Chief, Financial Officer, ACERA - 7776-12811 Fresno County ERA - rprts to Deputy Retirement CEO - 9464-12079

(24)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv.

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

PERS Chief Operating Investment Officer $ 17,667 $ 26,500

San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Chief Investment Officer $ 9,031 $ 14,446

SCERS Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. $ 8,895 $ 10,812

Alameda County ERA No Comparable Class

City & County of San Francisco ERS No Comparable Class

City of Los Angeles ERS No Comparable Class

City of San Diego ERS No Comparable Class

Contra Costa County ERA No Comparable Class

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Kern County ERA No Comparable Class

Los Angeles County Retirement System No Comparable Class

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

Marin County ERA No Comparable Class

Orange County ERS No Comparable Class

San Bernardino County ERA No Comparable Class

San Joaquin County ERA No Comparable Class

San Mateo County ERA No Comparable Class

Sonoma County ERA No Comparable Class

State Teachers' Retirement System No Comparable Class

Tulare County ERA No Comparable Class

Ventura County ERA No Comparable Class

% Above/ Number of Observations 2 Market Below

Variability Value Market

Labor Market Median 10812 I.D.

--40th Percentile I.D.

--60th Percentile I.D.

--75th Percentile I.D.

--Labor Market Mean 0 I.D.

--SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 0 Percentile0 Percentile

Footnotes

Fresno County ERA - Investment Analyst-7337-8918; rprts to Retirement CIO City of San Diego ERS - Investment Officer I and II reprot to Chief Investment Officer

City & County of San Francisco ERS - Investment Officer, ACERA - 5663-9625; rprts to Chief Investment Officer, ACERA Contra Costa County ERA - Investment Program Mgr - 14445

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System - Principal Investment Officer, LACERA - 18376-27814 SCERS - Retirement Finance Officer - 7378-9222

San Mateo County ERA - Retirement Financial Officer - 6065-7375

(25)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum Chief Investment Officer

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

PERS Chief Investment Officer $ 31,667 $ 47,583

Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $ 21,236 $ 32,142

State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $ 22,917 $ 30,417

City & County of San Francisco ERS Deputy Dir for Investments, Retirement $ 20,330 $ 24,711

San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $ 11,126 $ 17,796

City of San Diego ERS Investment Officer $ 17,328

Alameda County ERA Chief Investment Officer, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013

San Mateo County ERA Chief Investment Officer $ 12,242 $ 15,301

Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $ 12,098 $ 14,705

Orange County ERS Chief Investment Officer, Retirement $ 14,413

SCERS Chief Investment Officer $ 10,457 $ 12,712

City of Los Angeles ERS Chief Investment Officer $ 9,977 $ 12,396

Sonoma County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $ 8,660 $ 10,524

San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $ 7,975 $ 9,696

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Kern County ERA No Comparable Class

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

Marin County ERA No Comparable Class

San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending

Tulare County ERA No Comparable Class

Ventura County ERA No Comparable Class

% Above/ Number of Observations 13 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median 12712 $ 16,013 -25.97%

40th Percentile $ 15,586 -22.61%

60th Percentile $ 17,422 -37.05%

75th Percentile $ 24,711 -94.39%

Labor Market Mean 18 $ 20,233 -59.16%

SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 18th Percentile18th Percentile

Footnotes

Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 200,000-300,000

City & County of San Francisco ERS - Rprts to CEO; Investment Officer, ACERA - 5663-9625 San Bernardino County ERA - Salary Range TBD

(26)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum General Counsel

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

PERS General Counsel $ 17,833 $ 26,833

State Teachers' Retirement System General Counsel $ 14,167 $ 20,000

Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Counsel, Legal Chief Counsel, Disability Litigation12,800$ $ 19,374

City of San Diego ERS Retirement General Counsel $ 17,076

San Mateo County ERA Chief Deputy County Counsel $ 13,247 $ 16,560

Alameda County ERA Chief Counsel, ACERA $ 11,910 $ 15,688

Contra Costa County ERA General Counsel $ 10,346 $ 12,576

SCERS General Counsel $ 9,661 $ 11,743

Kern County ERA Retirement General Counsel II $ 9,578 $ 11,699

City & County of San Francisco ERS No Comparable Class

City of Los Angeles ERS No Comparable Class

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

Marin County ERA No Comparable Class

Orange County ERS No Comparable Class

San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending

San Diego County ERA No Comparable Class

San Joaquin County ERA No Comparable Class

Sonoma County ERA No Comparable Class

Tulare County ERA No Comparable Class

Ventura County ERA No Comparable Class

% Above/ Number of Observations 8 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median 11743 $ 16,818 -43.22%

40th Percentile $ 16,637 -41.68%

60th Percentile $ 17,536 -49.33%

75th Percentile $ 19,531 -66.32%

Labor Market Mean 1 $ 17,476 -48.82%

SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 1st Percentile 1st Percentile

Footnotes

San Bernardino County ERA - Salary Range TBD

(27)

SCERS

LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY

Statistics computed using range maximum Retirement Administrator/CEO

Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum

State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Executive Officer $ 20,000 $ 26,250

City of San Diego ERS Retirement Administrator/CEO $ 24,383

San Bernardino County ERA Chief Executive Officer $ 12,000 $ 22,000

City & County of San Francisco ERS Department Head V $ 16,614 $ 21,205

Alameda County ERA CEO, ACERA $ 17,500 $ 20,833

San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $ 12,310 $ 20,315

PERS Chief Executive Officer $ 14,583 $ 19,916

City of Los Angeles ERS General Manager - LACERS $ 12,787 $ 19,170

Marin County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 16,250 $ 18,911

Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Executive Officer/LACERA $ 11,906 $ 18,022

San Mateo County ERA Chief Executive Officer/SAMCERA $ 13,909 $ 17,387

Sonoma County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 14,071 $ 17,104

Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $ 16,210

Kern County ERA Executive Director $ 12,920 $ 15,773

Orange County ERS Chief Executive Officer $ 15,593

SCERS Retirement Administrator/CEO $ 13,259 $ 14,618

San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 11,957 $ 14,534

Ventura County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 10,150 $ 14,210

Fresno County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 8,197 $ 13,863

Tulare County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 10,686 $ 12,296

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

% Above/ Number of Observations 19 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median 14618 $ 18,022 -23.29%

40th Percentile $ 17,451 -19.38%

60th Percentile $ 19,118 -30.79%

75th Percentile $ 20,574 -40.74%

Labor Market Mean 17 $ 18,314 -25.29%

SCERS SALARY PERCENTILE 17th Percentile17th Percentile

Footnotes

Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 157,890-197,362

(28)

A

PPENDIX

B

T

OTAL

C

OMPENSATION

(29)

SCERS

Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO 13

Survey Agency Comparable Class Range

Max Def. Comp. Educ. Incent. Long. Car Allow Other Cash Ret. Pick-up Cash

Cum. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum.

Emp. Retir Contrib Social Security Total Comp

Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $16,013 $480 $16,493 $1,623 $124 $18,240 $2,994 $788 $22,023

City & County of San Francisco ERS Manager IV $11,267 $11,267 $660 inc inc inc inc $11,927 $2,028 $720 $14,674

City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $14,197 $14,197 $1,228 $54 inc $1 $15,480 $3,008 $206 $18,695

City of San Diego ERS No Comparable Class

Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Benefits Manager $9,654 $85 $483 $455 $10,677 $1,540 $59 $9 $66 $12,350 $2,539 $696 $15,585

Fresno County ERA No Comparable Class

Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $10,801 $648 $11,449 $886 inc inc $8 $12,343 $3,102 $713 $16,158

Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $14,507 $14,507 $1,074 $95 inc $15,676 $1,828 $210 $17,714

Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Declined to Participate

Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Declined to Participate

Marin County ERA No Comparable Class

Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, Internal $13,790 $896 $14,686 $1,179 inc $25 $15,891 $2,637 $200 $18,727

PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Benefits Admin $10,520 $10,520 $1,283 inc inc inc $11,803 $1,844 $709 $14,356

San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Member Services $19,559 $1,565 $330 $21,453 $1,046 $21 $12 $2 $65 $22,598 $4,068 $284 $26,950

San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $13,356 $1,269 $14,625 $943 inc inc $32 $25 $15,625 $3,220 $194 $19,039

San Joaquin County ERA No Comparable Class

San Mateo County ERA Assistant Executive Officer/Benefits Mgr $13,625 $889 $297 $14,811 $1,683 $97 $15 $16,606 $3,844 $754 $21,204

Sonoma County ERA No Comparable Class

State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment III $9,476 $9,476 $1,283 inc inc $17 $65 $10,842 $1,015 $694 $12,550

Tulare County ERA No Comparable Class

Ventura County ERA Retirement Operations Manager $8,076 $242 $404 $220 $8,943 $592 inc inc $7 $52 $9,593 $999 $622 $11,214

SCERS Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $108 $362 $11,282 $1,149 $118 inc $12,549 $1,995 $713 $15,257

Median Median $13,356 $14,197 $15,480 $17,714

% +/- Median -23.5% -25.8% -23.4% -16.1% Benefit Gain/Loss 7.4%

References

Related documents

Chief Student Affairs Officer Chief Student Affairs Officer Chief Registrar/Records Chief Student Affairs Officer Chief Student Affairs Officer Chief Student Affairs Officer

Kanakdhara Empowerment is work to attract wealth, prosperity, financial stability, success wealth, prosperity, financial stability, success and happiness.. Attunement for this

Chief Marketing Officer Chief Operations Officer Chief Executive Officer Chief Information Officer Customer service teams Chief Financial Officer Chief Technology Officer Chief

originated late on che seem lineage.. Synonyms: None that unambiguously apply to the rora l clade. Late Triassic plants from the Chinle Formation in north-eastern

The project aimed to compare the impact that the experience had on the pupils’ emotional health and well-being and behaviour in these groups when compared to a control group

https://studentservices.uwo.ca under the Medical Documentation heading] Students seeking academic accommodation on medical grounds for any missed tests, exams,

The present study is attempted to draw a productivity, collaboration and authorship status of Mike Thelwall, professor of Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Uptake of nutrients (N, P, K) was significantly improved by microbial inoculants, tested individually or in combination. fluorescens significantly increased in N, P and K contents