When voters considered whether to approve Measure L, an amendment to the San Diego city charter to redefine how public officials are paid, they were presented a single question in three parts.

Should the rules be changed to restrict benefits for elected officers? Should their lobbying and campaign activities be restricted? And should voters do away with the requirement that council members set their own pay and the mayor’s, instead linking the salaries to state judges?

The measure passed overwhelmingly, winning 77 percent approval from almost 250,000 votes.

But nowhere on the ballot were voters told the measure would more than double compensation for council members and the mayor within four years.


That detail was deep within the voter pamphlet, where the fiscal analysis showed the mayor’s pay would climb from $101,000 to an estimated $206,000 a year and council members’ salaries would jump from $75,000 to $155,000.

City Attorney Mara Elliott, whose office crafted the ballot language that appeared before voters, will see her pay rise from $194,000 to $206,000, the amount a state Superior Court judge is expected to be paid by 2022.

Anti-tax advocates and others said the language that appears on ballots is crucial to whether voters approve or reject a proposition.

“I actually nicknamed Measure L the most deceptive local measure on the ballot,” said Carl DeMaio, the former San Diego councilman. “It was a massive pay hike doubling their salaries they don’t deserve.”


DeMaio spent this campaign season working to pass Proposition 6, a measure that would have repealed a recent increase in the state gas tax. He said the ballot language attached to his measure was similarly biased and helped doom the proposition.

“We’re right now looking at every option and everything is on the table,” he said after Proposition 6 was defeated by 10 percentage points in the Tuesday election. “We’ve got to strip the ability of politicians to lie to voters by putting misleading language on the ballots.”

In addition to tying the elected officials’ salary to those of state judges, Measure L eliminated their $800 monthly car allowance and prohibited them from accepting fees for speeches.


The measure also banned council members or the mayor from lobbying the city for two years after leaving office, outlawed city-paid mailers during election campaigns and did away with free usage of the city’s luxury boxes at Petco Park or at the city’s Mission Valley stadium.

Measure L was placed on the ballot after decades of debate over how San Diego should compensate its elected leaders.

Under the city charter, an independent commission was required to study the salaries paid to the mayor and council members every two years and recommend a salary increase -- or not.

The idea was to put the salary question an arm’s length from the beneficiaries by assigning the analysis to an independent board. But in practice, council members did not approve raises for 15 years because they did not want to be criticized for raising their own pay.


“This is one of those issues I struggle with every time it comes up,” Councilman Scott Sherman said at a March hearing to discuss the latest salary-setting commission recommendation. “I do believe the system is broken.”

San Diego attorney Robert Ottilie served on the salary commission for years before being termed out. Since then, he has lobbied the council to reform the way it sets compensation so more people can run for public office.

“This has been an issue for 21 years and the underlying thrust of this effort has always been premised upon the idea of increasing the quantity and quality of individuals willing to run for elective office in San Diego,” said Ottilie, who proposed the ballot measure that eventually became Measure L.

He rejected the idea that the ballot language describing Measure L was deceptive, pointing to numerous public meetings debating the compensation issue and the litany of reports detailing the proposal.


“Not only was all of that information mailed to every single voter, it was also posted online,” Ottilie said. “That information accurately describes the measure, which was ultimately drafted for the City Council by the city attorney based on the city council’s vote in July.”

Councilman Mark Kersey stood by the language presented to voters in the ballot summary, saying through an aide that he was confident voters were aware of the fiscal impact of the measure when they cast their ballots.

“Yes,” his chief of staff wrote in an email, “below is the table in the voter information pamphlet, which lays it out in the clearest possible terms.”

The response on social media to questions about the ballot language was mixed, with some voters agreeing that the wording was vague and others saying it is incumbent on voters to educate themselves about the items they are deciding.


On Facebook, Daniel Hunts said he did not understand the elected officials’ pay would be doubled. “No, I didn’t know that and probably would have voted differently if the ballot language had been clearer,” he posted.

But Michael Simonsen said it was clear the measure would mean a pay raise for public officials.

“Absolutely knew,” he wrote on Twitter. “It is about time!”

Political experts say the title and description of ballot measures can seal their fate.


“Ballot language matters -- that’s why we fight over it so much,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “It especially matters when it’s the only thing you know about the issue.”

California is one of few states that allow elected officials to write ballot measures, he said.

“It’s fairly rare to have an elected rather than appointed official write ballot summaries,” he said. “Because of that, we have a legal process in place to challenge ballot language and sometimes a judge will step in and say that ballot summary has to be re-written.”

Kousser said the ballot title and summary are even more critical for lesser-known questions like Measure L.


“This wasn’t SoccerCity,” he said. “It wasn’t the thing everyone was talking about.”

While the Measure L fiscal analysis distributed to voters estimated that San Diego elected officials’ pay would rise to $206,000 by December 2020, it acknowledges the actual costs could be higher.

“These costs will be somewhat higher if annual wage adjustments (based on the salary increase percentage for state judicial salaries) are applied between now and 2020-2022,” it said.

According to the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit that collects and publishes data from state courts nationwide, San Diego County judges’ salaries have increased by about 2.3 percent a year since 2003.


A U-T Watchdog review shows that if the average annual increase continues at the same pace, the San Diego mayor’s salary will reach $219,100 by 2022.

The increase will bring compensation for San Diego’s mayor closer to chief executive salaries seen in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, which all operate under a strong-mayor form of government.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti received $248,100 in regular pay last year, according to compensation data from the California State Controller’s Office. Democratic San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who passed away in December, received more than $300,000 in 2017

Fresno Mayor Lee Brand, elected in 2017, received $128,800 his first year in office. Data show Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, received $212,422 in regular pay and nearly $100,000 in benefits last year.


Under the new measure, San Diego council members will see a 67 percent increase in pay by 2020. At 60 percent of the salary of a Superior Court judge, their pay could jump to $125,600, based on past judicial increases. With the increase to 75 percent of judges’ pay in 2022, they will make more than $188,000 a year a decade from now.

State controller data show Los Angeles council members receive $190,878 per year with nearly $13,000 in benefits. Council members in Fresno collect about $69,600 with $14,300 in benefits. Oakland council members receive anywhere from $84,000 to $92,200 per year.

Data specialist Lauryn Schroeder contributed to this report.

Pay for the mayor and council will more than double under Measure L. (Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune file)


jeff.mcdonald@sduniontribune.com (619) 293-1708 @sdutMcDonald