Introduced by Newport Lawmaker : Bill to Separate Coroners, Sheriffs Faces Hard Fight

In and around Modesto, Lynn Wood wears three hats: Stanislaus County sheriff, coroner and public administrator.

Since the three elective offices were rolled into one, in a series of cost-cutting moves that began in 1971, local officials say there have been no major problems, real or imagined, with Wood or his predecessor.

So people in the Central Valley farming community are disdainfully viewing a bill that would split the offices of sheriff and coroner in nine counties as just another bit of weirdness from Southern California.

Be it with Thomas Noguchi under one hat in Los Angeles or Brad Gates under two in Orange County, any problem with coroners “down there,” said Stanislaus County Chief Administrative Officer Gardener Hutchins, is more likely a result of regional strangeness than any inherent conflict in having one person serve as both sheriff and coroner.

Stanislaus is one of nine counties that would have to eliminate the dual offices at the end of current terms of office under a bill introduced last month by freshman Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach). Twenty-six other counties where one person holds both titles would have to do so when, and if, their populations exceed 200,000.

Ferguson said he introduced the bill to force separation in all but small counties because he is con vinced it is “morally right.”

“How would you like to be thrown into a jail where the head jailer is also the coroner?” Ferguson asked.

But now Ferguson is facing an uphill battle ushering his first bill through a Legislature that is customarily unreceptive to new ideas for government reforms from first-term lawmakers.

The powerful law enforcement lobby--including police chiefs, from whom Ferguson expected support--is bitterly opposed to the measure, and around the state, county officials tend to regard it as silly, unneeded or both. Nothing in the law now prevents any county from splitting the offices, the county officials note.

For 113 years, California counties have been empowered to combine certain offices, and 35 of the state’s 58 counties have combined the offices of sheriff and coroner as a means of saving money.

But heavily populated counties have generally avoided giving one person the dual role. The notable exception has been Orange, which put the two offices together in 1970 after a dispute between county supervisors and then-Coroner Raymond Brandt.

Sheriff Gates Defends Role

Former Sheriff James Musick, the first to hold both titles at once in Orange County, did not even want the dual role. But Sheriff-Coroner Gates, who has held the offices since 1975 and is planning to run again in June, 1986, has been a staunch defender.

Although Gates endorsed one of Ferguson’s opponents in a bitter Republican primary battle last year, Ferguson insists that nothing personal is involved. No matter who holds the office, Ferguson said, the public perceives that a fair inquiry is all but impossible when a coroner who is also sheriff looks into a jail death or one in which his deputies are involved.

Ferguson said he had been concerned about the potential for a conflict of interest long before the years-long controversy in Orange County intensified late last year, following the apparent suicide of County Jail inmate John Stephenson. Stephenson’s death precipitated a dispute between Gates and mental health officials, prompting judges and county supervisors to question the ability of a sheriff-coroner to impartially investigate a death at the jail.

In most other counties, however, the potential for a conflict has never been a matter of much concern, officials say. In those instances where it has, people have been satisfied that adequate safeguards exist.

‘Working Out Just Fine’

Monterey County combined the offices just three years ago to save money and eliminate some duplication, said County Administrative Officer Joe Hart, who added, “I think it is working out just fine here.”

Monterey County Sheriff-Coroner Bud Cook, who is president of the State Sheriffs Assn., said Ferguson’s concerns about potential conflicts “are just a little bit far-fetched.”

“I think the whole thing stems from a political dispute down in Orange County,” said Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner Alfred Noren, one of those who would be affected. “It (the bill) doesn’t make any sense.”

“I don’t like to see state law changed because of problems in one area,” echoed Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner

John Carpenter.

Ferguson said his mail has convinced him that public opinion in Orange County is on his side. But even key elected officials there, including some who have feuded with Gates from time to time, most certainly are not.

One reason the Board of Supervisors won’t be endorsing the bill, said Chairman Thomas F. Riley, is that Ferguson never discussed it with local officials before he introduced it.

‘County-by-County Issue’

Supervisor Bruce Nestande, who requested studies now under way by the county administrative office and the grand jury over potential conflicts, said he is opposed to Ferguson’s attempt to address the questions on a statewide basis because, “I happen to think this is a county-by-county issue.”

“I don’t think there is a right or wrong way,” said Nestande. “We are spending a lot of time examining the options we have to see how we can best eliminate potential conflicts.”

“If you go with a coroner-pathologist, then you have the potential of conflicts with doctors,” he added.

Supervisor Ralph Clark, who says publicly that he is awaiting the outcome of the studies, reportedly wanted the board to pass a resolution opposing Ferguson’s bill--which could have been something of an embarrassment for Ferguson in Sacramento.

Like Nestande, Clark adds that the decision on whether the dual role should continue should be made “in Santa Ana, not Sacramento.”

Besides Orange, counties that would be immediately affected by Ferguson’s bill are Contra Costa, Monterey, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Stanislaus and Tulare.

Amendments Planned

The bill has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee, chaired by Assemblyman Dominic Cortese (D-San Jose), but so far no hearing has been scheduled.

When a hearing is scheduled, Ferguson has a couple of afterthought amendments in mind.

One amendment--a requirement that the coroner be elected, not appointed--would probably win him some friends and lose others.

The other change he wants to make, however, would almost surely broaden the opposition to his bill.

Ferguson said he’d like to eliminate the bill’s classification as a new “state-mandated local program,” which carries with it a requirement that counties be reimbursed for resulting costs. Ferguson says his bill is not a new mandate and that the state should not have to reimburse the counties.

“Counties are already required to investigate the deaths of people,” he said. “I’m just saying that those two offices should not be combined.”

‘Bring Wrath of God’

Facetiously, the lobbyist for the California Peace Officers Assn. says the latter amendment is a change he’ll support.

“Let him do that,” said Al Cooper, the peace officers’ lobbyist. “That’ll bring the wrath of God.”

Meanwhile, Ferguson, who said he has done very little lobbying of his own for his bill, said he will count it as a learning experience if his first piece of legislation dies quickly in the face of such opposition.

“I’m new . . . . I want to see what happens in government to a bill that on its own merits should be approved,” Ferguson said.

“It is,” he said, “such an obvious moral issue.”