District attorneys, sheriffs and other elected county officials need pay raises. Asking for eight years worth of raises, however, is unrealistic.
Carson City spent $17,500 each in 2001 to boost the retirement funds of the capital city's five full-time elected officials -- district attorney, sheriff, assessor, recorder and treasurer -- to overcome the Legislature's failure that year to approve a pay increase in the waning moments of the session.
That bill would have raised county salaries statewide by 27 percent and had wide support, but never made it to the floor before the clock struck midnight two years ago. Now comes new legislation to raise those county salaries, again by about 27 percent.
Base salaries haven't been increased in eight years for those positions, so proponents such as the Nevada Association of Counties figure raises averaging about 27 percent are reasonable because they would help make up for lost time.
We'd rather see a plan that gives an immediate 10 percent boost to those salaries, then lays out an annual cost-of-living increase so this doesn't come up session after session.
Counties can ask to opt out of the pay increases, if commissioners (or supervisors, in Carson City's case) decide financial hard times won't allow them. That puts the state Legislature in charge of setting a ceiling on pay rates for those officials, but leaves some of the decision-making for year-to-year budgeting in the hands of local officials.
It's apparent salaries for the district attorney, sheriff, clerk and others are too low when they are often paid less than other, unelected department heads. They ran for the job knowing the pay, of course, and most have a strong sense of public service that drives them more than the paycheck.
Nevertheless, even if size of salary isn't the prime incentive for people who run for county offices, inadequate pay can be a powerful disincentive for qualified people who might otherwise be eager to serve.
