New pages on state budget and finance, environmental terms and coal now available on Policypedia!

Dane County Sheriff's Office, Wisconsin

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dane County Sheriff's Office employee salaries are public records under the Wisconsin Open Records Law.


In 2009, 15 employees made over $100,000.[1]

Dane County Sheriff's Office salaries over $100,000, 2009[1]
Name Job title Agency Base pay Total earned
Lurquin, Robert Sergeant Sheriff-Field Services $69,248 $100,809
Hook, Jeffrey Captain - 105 Sheriff-Field Services $101,685 $101,685
Wagner, Joel Deputy Sheriff IV Sheriff-Field Services $53,785 $101,966
Hundt, Gerald Lieutenant Sheriff-Field Services $73,932 $102,883
Sampson, Joseph Lieutenant Sheriff-Admin $73,932 $104,097
Twombly, Mark Lieutenant Sheriff-Security Services $73,932 $104,811
Ritter, David Sergeant Sheriff-Field Services $69,248 $105,055
Blakley, Jeffrey Lieutenant Sheriff-Field Services $73,932 $105,663
Ritter, Timothy Captain - 105 Sheriff-Support Services $102,591 $106,458
Teuscher, Jeffrey Captain - 105 Sheriff-Security Services $102,591 $106,458
Disch, Gordon Sergeant Sheriff-Field Services $69,248 $107,100
Balistreri, Anthony Deputy Sheriff I-II Sheriff-Field Services $52,317 $108,458
Molony, Mary Captain - 105 Sheriff-Support Services $106,072 $110,218
Mahoney, David Sheriff Sheriff-Admin $113,979 $113,979
Boylan, Ron Chief Deputy Sheriff - 105 Sheriff-Admin $111,376 $115,794

Car use

According to information provided by the Sheriff's Office, personnel may use county-owned vehicles for official business only. County-owned vehicles may not be used for personal use without the knowledge or permission of the Sheriff, except in an emergency, when it is impractical to obtain prior authorization. In this event, the reason for using the vehicle and the circumstances shall be communicated to the employee's Division Commander with copies to the Sheriff and Chief Deputy as soon as practical.

Salary records project

In 2011, Sunshine Review chose 152 local governments as the focus of research on public employee salaries. The editors of Sunshine Review selected eight states with relevant political contexts (listed alphabetically):

1. California
2. Florida
3. Illinois
4. Michigan
5. New Jersey
6. Pennsylvania
7. Texas
8. Wisconsin

Within these states, the editors of Sunshine Review focused on the most populous cities, counties and school districts, as well as the emergency services entities within these governments. The purpose of this selection method was to develop articles on governments affecting the most citizens.

The salary information garnered from these states were a combination of existing online resources and state Freedom of Information Act requests sent out to the governments.

Importance of public employee pay disclosure

In July 2010, The Los Angeles Times uncovered that officials in Bell, California were making remarkably high salaries.[2] Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo was earning a yearly $787,637. It was later uncovered that Rizzo's total compensation after taking benefits into account topped $1.5 million a year.[3]

For comparison:[2]

  • Manhattan Beach, with about 7,000 fewer people than Bell, paid its most recent city manager $257,484 a year.
  • Long Beach, with a population close to 500,000, paid its city manager $235,000 annually.
  • Los Angeles County paid its chief executive, William T. Fujioka, $338,458.

Corruption solution

After this report was released, governments began to proactively disclose salary information of their employees. Before the end of the summer of 2010, more than a dozen cities in Orange County, for example, posted salary information on the front pages of their websites.[4]

The cost of transparency websites maintaining such information ranges from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands. These websites also save money, and this often is not taken into account when measuring costs.

Citizens upset about the breach of trust and armed with information formed a group called the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse, which pushed for an independent audit of city salaries and contracts.[5]

Citizens, empowered with information, are key to keeping government free from corruption and efficient. A study published by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia revealed that the city of Philadelphia has a problem with the efficiency and costs of public employee pensions.[6] The amount that Philadelphia pays to pension recipients limits the city’s ability to use its budget effectively.

The report revealed that there were more individuals receiving pension benefits—33,907 claimants in 2006—than workers in the city—28,701.[6] The authors of the study recommend three steps towards addressing the problem of high costs in pensions.[6] First, improve data collection so that decision-making in terms of pension policies is more informed. Second, promote transparency for better accountability to citizens. Third, reduce costs and use the savings for developing Philadelphia.

Resistance to public employee salary data as public records

The idea of making public employee salaries is relatively new. In 2008, several local government employee associations and unions protested the posting of state employee salaries by newspaper The Sacramento Bee.[7][8] At the time, it was seen as a safety risk and invasion of privacy.

Sunshine Review aims in posting salary information

Publicly posted salaries often leave out important information. Salary schedules can be published as ranges, not as specific take-home compensation, and high-level, highly-paid positions are often not disclosed proactively.[4][3] Additionally, salaries leave out compensation received through health and retirement benefits, as well as benefits such as commuter allowances and cell phone reimbursements. This project aimed to close the gap and provide a more accurate picture of public employee salaries for the sake of public education and transparency.

External links