A Good Year’s Work

The current Orange County Grand Jury ends its one-year term Tuesday, and we suspect that the County Board of Supervisors will be a bit relieved to see this panel pass into history.

No grand jury in recent memory has dealt so extensively, or so harshly, with county board operations as has the hard-working 1986-87 panel. Nor has any recent grand jury seemed to focus as much attention as the current panel on fundamental problems of county government.

In April, the jury released a study that criticized the “inability of county government to take action to deal with important longer-term countywide issues” and cited the board’s failure to convert plans into action or provide adequate leadership. The report understandably irritated some board members.

That early displeasure, however, should not harden the supervisors’ attitudes or lead them to arbitrarily dismiss grand jury recommendations included in the jury’s year-end reports, which have been issued in recent days.

Some jury recommendations are workable, others less so. But all are interesting and worthy of public study because they center attention on the county board, how it operates and how it might better serve the community.

Major recommendations include limiting supervisors to two terms of office and electing them countywide instead of by districts, as is done now. All things considered, both changes would weaken, rather than improve, board representation.

The jury’s suggestion that the board give more authority to the county administrative officer to carry out the plans and policies of the board is a good one. Such a step would help remove the supervisors from daily decisions and instead focus their attention where it should be: on broad policy and direction, rather than day-to-day management.

The panel criticized the board’s style of browbeating and sometimes bullying those who appear before it. The jury also chastised supervisors for not doing more to help the county’s homeless, poor, mentally ill and other needy residents, and it urged improvement in the recruitment of minorities and women into county management posts, where their numbers are disproportionately low compared to the population in general.

The supervisors are not obligated to follow grand jury recommendations. Legally, all they must do is formally respond to them, which most often is what quietly happens. The jury’s report is then filed and forgotten.

This year should be different. Many of the issues raised by the grand jury deserve the light of public debate. It is up to county residents and the grand juries to monitor local government and continue to push for more effective, representative government.

To help accomplish this end, the outgoing jury, in an unprecedented move, has been meeting with the new jury that takes office Wednesday. The goal is twofold: to give the new jurors the background they need to help them get off to a running start and to ensure continuity so that recommendations developed after a year’s study get the consideration they deserve. That should help make the new jury even more effective so that public officials will pay more attention when the public’s watchdog growls.