Measure E: Measure E County Charter Amendment Ordinance
Tehama County · Tehama County · November 3, 2026
The question on your ballot
Shall the measure amending the Tehama County Charter to establish the annual salary of members of the Board of Supervisors at the California state minimum wage multiplied by 2,080 hours be adopted?
In plain language
Measure E would change the Tehama County Charter. It deals with the yearly pay of each member of the Board of Supervisors. Right now, the charter sets that pay at $1,045 a month, or $12,540 a year. Voters last raised it in 1989. Under Measure E, the yearly pay would equal the state's hourly minimum wage times 2,080 hours. At today's minimum wage of $16.90 an hour, that would be $35,152 a year for each of the five members. The change would start January 1, 2027. After that, the pay would go up on its own whenever the state minimum wage goes up. Only voters could change this pay rule. A YES vote sets supervisor pay by this minimum wage formula. A NO vote keeps the pay at $1,045 a month.
Fiscal impact
Each supervisor's pay would go from $12,540 a year to $35,152 a year (based on the current $16.90 hourly minimum wage), starting January 1, 2027. It would rise on its own when the state minimum wage rises.
Impartial analysis
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY COUNTY COUNSEL THE COUNTY OF TEHAMA MEASURE E The Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama has placed Measure E on the ballot. Measure E proposes an amendment to Section 2 Article IV of the Tehama County Charter to establish an annual salary of each member of the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) at the California state minimum wage multiplied by two thousand eighty (2,080) hours. Tehama County (the “County”) is one of fifteen (15) charter counties in the State of California. The County Charter currently sets the salary of each member of the Board of Supervisors at One Thousand Forty-Five dollars ($1,045.00) per month, or Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Forty dollars ($12,540.00) per year. This salary was last increased by the voters on January 1, 1989. This measure is authorized by Article 11, Section 3, of the California Constitution and Government Code Sections 23720 and 23722, which permit the Board to propose amendments to the County Charter for approval by the voters at a general election. If Measure E is approved, effective January 1, 2027, the annual salary for each member of the Board would be equal to the State of California hourly minimum wage multiplied by two thousand eighty (2,080) hours. Based on the current California minimum wage of Sixteen dollars ninety cents ($16.90) per hour, this would result in an annual salary of Thirty-Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Two ($35,152.00) per each of the five member. The salary would automatically increase, without further action, whenever the State of California minimum wage increases. The salary established by this amendment may not be changed except by approval of the voters at a general election. Future salary increases would occur automatically as the state minimum wage increases. Approval of Measure E requires 50% plus one of the votes cast. A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of amending the County Charter to set the annual salary of each member of the Board at the California state minimum wage multiplied by two thousand eighty (2,080) hours. A “no” vote is a vote against amending the County Charter, and in favor of retaining the current salary of One Thousand Forty-Five dollars ($1,045.00) per month for each member of the Board. This Impartial Analysis is hereby submitted to the Elections Officials in conformance with Section 9160 of the Elections Code of the State of California. s/ Margaret Long, Tehama County Counsel
Official ballot arguments
Filed for the official voter guide by each side, printed as submitted.
Argument in favor
Arguments in support of Measure E County Charter Amendment Ordinance The proposed amendment updates the base salary of the Board of Supervisors from $1,045 per month to a benchmark based on a California minimum wage full -time equivalent. The current salary has remained unchanged since 1989, despite decades of inflation, inc reasing responsibilities, and the growing complexity of county government. During that time, inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the supervisor salary by approximately 63 percent, meaning today's salary buys little more than one -third of what it did when voters last approved it. This proposal establishes a reasonable compensation benchmark that restores an appropriate baseline for a position responsible for governing the county and making decisions that affect every resident. This measure is also about preserving our local government. As the real value of the supervisor salary has steadily declined over the past 37 years, so has the ability of ordinary working residents to serve in elected office. A compensation level that has lost most of its purchasing power creates an unintended barrier to public service, limiting the pool of qualified candidates to those who can afford the financial sacrifice. The proposed benchmark is a modest, objective standard that helps ensure the Board remains accessible to working families, business owners, farmers, tradespeople, retirees, and others from every walk of life. Finally, this amendment provides a transparent and depoliticized approach to supervisor compensation. Rather than requiring periodic ballot measures simply to keep pace with inflation, the proposal ties the base salary to an objective benchmark. This approach promotes transparency and predictability while helping ensure that future generations of Tehama County residents are not discouraged from public service simply because compensation fails to keep pace with inflation. s/ Parker R. Hunt Treasurer/Tax Collector Tehama County
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE E TEHAMA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT The Argument in Favor focuses only on the current monthly Charter salary and fails to disclose the full compensation package County Supervisors are entitled. The ballot question asks voters to navigate a formula based on California’s minimum wage without specifying whether the current wage or the January 1, 2027, wage should be considered, while omitting the current or proposed new salary. These omissions matter. The ballot question was not written by state election officials. It was drafted by the County and approved by a vote of the Board of Supervisors. Voters should not have to decipher a confusing formula to calculate its financial consequences. Transparency means giving voters all the facts-not requiring them to figure them out alone. Why were the salary information and total compensation never disclosed? If voters are being asked to approve a change in compensation, they deserve to know the compensation, including benefits before casting their vote. Voters should be provided with full and transparent disclosure by their governmental officials. The measure establishes a formula that automatically changes compensation whenever California’s minimum wage changes. That means future compensation can increase without a vote. Voters can listen to the Board Chair’s revealing public comments from the August 4, 2026, Board meeting, when questions were raised about the confusing Ballot Question and lack of transparency. Keep your voice and Demand transparency BEFORE YOU VOTE: Get the facts at https://bit.ly/NoOnE The link includes the August 4, 2026, Board meeting segment containing the Chairman’s comments. s/Robert Burroughs Tehama County Supervisor, District 1 Signing in his individual capacity
Argument against
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE _E_ VOTE NO on the Tehama County Charter Amendment. The ballot question does not disclose the Board of Supervisors' current annual base salary of $12,540, or the $36,192 annual base salary the proposed formula would produce on January 1, 2027—an approximately 188.6% increase in base salary. Instead, voters are asked to approve a formula multiplying the California minimum wage by 2,080 hours. The measure would change how the Board's salary is calculated by tying it to future increases in the state minimum wage. If approved, the base salary would automatically increase when the state minimum wage increases, without another vote of County voters. Supervisors are elected county officers, not hourly employees. The Tehama County Charter establishes their compensation as an annual salary, not an hourly wage. The proposed formula uses 2,080 hours to calculate that annual salary, even though Supervisors are not compensated based on hours worked. Base salary is only one component of compensation. County Supervisors are eligible for additional compensation and benefits, including vehicle and cell phone allowances, County-paid medical, dental, vision and life insurance, the County's share of PERS retirement and deferred compensation contributions, committee-service compensation, and other benefits authorized by law. Voters should consider total compensation when evaluating this increase. Board members have publicly stated that the measure is intended to address compensation for future Boards. If that is the intent, the amendment could have been written to apply to newly elected or appointed members of the Board, rather than establishing the new compensation formula for current and future officeholders. Voters deserve clear information before voting. Review the proposed Charter Amendment, current compensation information, and supporting public records at Https://bit.ly/NoOnE. s/ Robert Burroughs ________________________________ Robert Burroughs Tehama County Supervisor, District 1 Signing in his individual capacity s/ Fred Ehrensvard _______________________________ Fred Ehrensvard Property Manager
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE E The opposition does not dispute the core fact: Tehama County Supervisor pay has been frozen since 1989. 37 years without a single adjustment have left this county paying its elected officials less than any county in California, less than minimum wage for the hours the job requires. Measure E fixes that with a formula. Tying salary to the state minimum wage removes the Board from ever voting itself a raise again. That is a safeguard against self-dealing-not an example of it. The 2,080- hour figure is simply the standard full-time-equivalent used to convert an hourly rate into an annual salary. It does not make Supervisors hourly employees, and does not exempt them from public accountability. On total compensation: every public employee in this county, and every publicly reported salary in California, is evaluated on base pay, with benefits disclosed separately. Holding Supervisors to a different standard is not transparency. It is a double standard no one, even the opposition, would apply to any other county employee. As for waiting for “future Boards,” this county has heard that argument before. It is why nothing changed for 37 years. Every Board can always find a reason to defer to the next one, and the next one does the same. Vote YES on Measure E. Fix it now, with a transparent formula, so the Board never sets its own pay again. s/ Greg B. Jones, Jr. Supervisor, District 5
What supporters and opponents say — outside sources (not official ballot arguments)
Statements by campaigns, officials and news coverage, quoted with attribution and linked to the original. VoterDecoder did not write them and does not endorse either side.
Supporters say
No public statements in favor were found.
Opponents say
No public statements against were found.