Supervisors Slow to Back a Revamped Measure M : Election: Board members are reluctant to lead the fight for a levy to fund transportation improvements. Some say voters face enough tax issues already.

As Orange County supporters of a transportation sales tax press for a November vote on it, many of their key players are looking to the Board of Supervisors to take the lead. But several supervisors, mindful of political risks, have indicated that they will tread carefully on the issue.

“I don’t know that I’ll necessarily be leading the charge for it,” Board Chairman Don R. Roth said. “I don’t think that would be a very good idea.”

Roth said that several tax issues will soon come before Orange County voters and that he is worried about the potential for backlash as a result.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said he too is reluctant to lead support, at least until he learns more about the proposed measure.

Only Supervisor Thomas F. Riley indicated that he might push the measure aggressively, but he is up for reelection in June and may wait until after that to play an active role.

The other two supervisors, Roger R. Stanton and Harriett M. Wieder, are considered less pivotal to the measure’s success. “I view my role in this transportation financing issue as that of a facilitator of information and the election process, rather than as an advocate of one position or the other,” Wieder said in a prepared statement.

With supervisors sticking to the sidelines, at least for now, supporters of the transportation tax are worried that elected officials will leave a leadership vacuum on the issue. That prospect could threaten the proposal’s passage, they said, especially if developers try to fill the gap by leading the effort themselves.

“For this to pass, I think Gaddi Vasquez or Don Roth needs to get out front on it,” said John R. Simon, a Newport Beach lawyer who represents developers and who was one of the forces behind Measure M, the half-cent transportation sales-tax proposal that failed last year.

Simon, who later added that Riley would also make an effective spokesman for a transportation measure, said the supervisors need to take the lead or voters will view the proposal suspiciously.

“I think they really have to do it, or else we’re going to be left with developers pushing the thing again,” he said. “That could create some problems.”

Simon and other Measure M proponents--including the Orange County Transportation Commission--hope to see a nearly identical proposal go before county voters this November, when they believe a higher turnout will propel it to victory.

Last week, the commission unanimously directed its staff to go ahead with plans for putting a new measure on the November ballot.

“I would say the prospects are excellent for a Measure M rematch in November,” commission member and Measure M supporter Dana W. Reed said Monday, after the commission’s vote.

Although adding that he believes a revamped Measure M would win regardless of whether the supervisors come to its aid, Reed said: “To win, I think it would be helpful for the supervisors to get involved.”

The measure’s supporters were stunned by its failure last year, and analysts have attributed it to a combination of low voter turnout and its negative association with developers, who contributed the bulk of the campaign’s war chest.

“I think it’s true that the heavy leadership of the developers backfired,” Riley said. “I think that’s too bad because we need to do something.”

Having the supervisors take the lead this time would help overcome the measure’s association with the development community and thus ease voters’ concerns, supporters say.

In the search for leadership, most attention has centered on Vasquez, Roth and Riley, who are considered the most powerful and popular members of the five-member board. Supervisor Stanton has not shown great interest in the transportation measure, supporters say, and Wieder, who lost a bid for a congressional seat in 1988, is struggling with her own political future.

For the remaining three board members, however, supporting the measure involves significant political risks. Proponents could be linked with development interests, and even if they are not, they will be in a position of asking voters to increase their own taxes.

That’s a risk, the supervisors acknowledged, though Riley said he would be willing to take it once the June election is past.

“I’m prepared to ask the supervisors to put this (transportation measure) on the ballot,” Riley said. “I don’t think we’d take that action until July or August, but I think the supervisors would support it.”

In an interview last week, Vasquez, who does not face reelection for two years, was more cautious. He said he would decline to lead the push for Measure M, at least for now, but that his reluctance was based on a desire to review the proposal, not on politics surrounding it.

“First, we would need to have the kind of a plan . . . that provides something for everybody,” Vasquez said. “It would have to provide for the diversity of cities that we have, it would have to establish a level of accountability and it should include a growth-management component.”

And looming over the debate is Orange County’s persistent and famous refusal to endorse new taxes, regardless of the program they are intended to support.

Californians will be asked to consider a statewide hike in the gas tax on an upcoming ballot, and local officials have debated higher sales taxes to pay for new jails and court facilities. Altogether, supervisors are worried that their constituents will react by simply voting down any tax that comes their way.

“I’m worried that we’re on a collision course of raising all these taxes at the same time,” Roth said. “That’s not going to be easy.”