Proposition 140

The deficiencies of Sacramento are many, but since The Times chose to address the “latest casualties of Proposition 140,” the term-limiting and legislative budget-cutting initiative (editorial, June 14), we present this alternative view.

It was not the intent of Proposition 140 to cause the closure of the “offices of legislative analyst and auditor general” (properly denounced by The Times), but to abolish the unreported, unrecorded, unbridled and unaudited legislative “slush-fund” spending of taxpayer resources for such items as $500-gold rings, tie tacks, gourmet meals, first-class air travel and other excesses, about which The Times itself has complained.

The budget bill features an appropriation of $9 million in “support of governor and governor’s office,” together with a footnote: “This appropriation is exempt from provisions of Section 925.6, California Government Code”--exempt from audit by the state controller!

Notwithstanding our protests together with those of nonpartisan public service organizations in Los Angeles, Yolo, Solano, San Joaquin and Los Angeles counties among others, we anticipate Gov. Pete Wilson will eventually sign AB 222, featuring this unconstitutional provision, thus availing himself of a taxpayer-financed slush fund, increased by $500,000 from the current year, placing the state controller in the untenable position of choosing whether or not to violate his constitutional mandate.

The hypocrisy of Gov. Wilson will not be lost if the electorate is properly informed.

RALPH D. MORRELL, Chairman

Operation Slush Fund

Dixon