Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(CA) State Fund reformer was paid a salary of $450,000 a year, plus perks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:24 PM
Original message
(CA) State Fund reformer was paid a salary of $450,000 a year, plus perks
Source: LA Times

After its president was ousted in a scandal, California's government-run insurance company hired Janet Frank to clean up the mess, offering her a salary and benefits far beyond the reach of most state workers.

As the new president of California's largest provider of workers' compensation coverage, the insurance industry veteran received a $450,000 annual salary plus a signing bonus of nearly $140,000 to help her move from Colorado, employment records obtained by The Times show.

For her first 2 1/2 months on the job, starting in 2007, she was paid a $40,000 performance bonus by the insurer, a hybrid public-private company known as State Fund, which serves as a safety net for businesses. She was paid a $153,000 bonus for 2008. This month, she received last year's bonus: $142,500. Citing confidentiality, company officials declined to say what performance goals Frank had met.

<snip>

Pay for most of its 7,400 workers is limited by Civil Service rules, but top executives are exempt, receiving large salaries and perks that are more common in the private sector. Their pay packages are part of a recent effort to make the organization run more like a profit-making enterprise.

Frank never moved to California. She decided to commute weekly from her Denver-area home and to telecommute on Fridays. State Fund added a $99,000 annual stipend for her, partly to cover thousands of dollars in monthly commuting costs.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-fund21-2010mar21,0,4221909.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you Arnold

The Governor appoints nine members, including one from organized labor, and names the chairperson. The Speaker of the Assembly appoints one member who represents organized labor, and the Senate Committee on Rules appoints one member. The board also includes the Department of Industrial Relations Director as a non-voting “ex-officio” member.

http://www.statefundca.com/about/BoardOfDirectors.asp


The board was behind all of this.

http://www.wcexec.com/State-Fund-Plays-Hide-the-Contract-Then-Relents.aspx


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Executive compensation" is out of control...
If you are in those privileged ranks, it doesn't matter whether you succeed or fail. It doesn't matter that you are draining funds for a non-profit or basically stealing from the shareholders. There is no connection to reality.

Unfortunately, I think it will take a cataclysm before anything changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. It's still a pittance compared to the football & men's basketball
coaches at places like UCLA & USC. No lives at stake there either - just a fuckin game. Same way the Army & Air Force football coaches make about double than the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. She took a signing bonus of $140K to help her move, but didn't move?
How does she reconcile this? How does anyone at the company reconcile this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The "State" is the "Company" -
How does anyone at the company reconcile this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. How true those words are, UIA.
The state is the company.

The company is the state.


Those entities are all but synonymous these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. soon to be the employer of last resort and the funder of all employees
and the buyer of all insurance with the wages of the slaves who feed the machine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hell isn't that more than even the governor should make
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Arnold didn't take a salary right?

Either way, it's no wonder the state is such a disaster! $450k for being a state reformer? WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. Um, that isn't strange.
The state and government agencies hire consultants all the time and pay them up to $200+/hour for their services, which comes out to not much less than her salary if you annualize it. I'm not defending it, but this isn't a new thing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warpigs Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. Not the only one to commute
Frank was not the only executive hired to turn State Fund around, nor the only one paid highly and allowed to commute from another state.

Doug Stewart, the chief risk officer and current interim president, earns $488,000 a year, not including his performance bonus, and flies in from Washington state. Becky Wanta, the chief information officer who resigned last year, earned $430,000 and traveled from Nevada.



I guess they can't find anyone who was qualified and actually lived in California to work at the fund. :crazy: They also only worked 3.5 days a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. This is not so unusual even in the private sector
I might note, in the interests of pure accuracy, that 'worked 3.5 days a week' is not the same as 'worked 3.5 days a week in the office'. If part of one's job can be performed effectively via the computer and telephone, I have no problem with that.

Now whether these people performed effectively or not, I don't know. It is true that in California someone doing the same job at a similarly-sized private company can make a lot more money. Maybe they need to take a different approach to their hiring policy.

It's also hard to tell from the article how good (or not) of a job they were doing. For example, if a company was losing $50 million a year and a team of three people got it back into stability for a total cost of $5 million (numbers are for example only) then you might consider it well worth the expense.

I do think they were paid a shitload of money and the taxpayer should know how well or badly spent that money was, so I'm definitely in favor of an audit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC