Supervisors Criticized for Mishandling Prop. A : Taxation: They bungled a critical legal point by not keeping their distance from the board set up to administer the tax’s proceeds, it is contended.

From the perspective of the author of the law behind Proposition A, San Diego County officials doomed the half-cent sales tax for jails and courts long before the California Supreme Court did so Thursday by insisting on being “too involved” in deciding how to spend the funds.

Municipal Judge Larry Stirling, who as a state assemblyman carried the 1987 legislation that set the stage for the June, 1988, vote on the measure, said Thursday that he warned county officials that county supervisors’ presence on the seven-member board set up to administer the tax’s proceeds could pose legal problems.

Combined with the fact the agency’s expenditures were to conform to a master plan developed by the supervisors, the supervisors’ presence on the board caused Stirling and others to fear that the panel would not be seen as sufficiently independent.

“That was handled very poorly,” Stirling said. “It was my bill and had my name on it, and I carried it on behalf of the county. But they had very strong views of how the agency should be set up, and I had my own views.”

Though Stirling’s assessment stemmed from an insider’s perspective unmatched by most others, his comments typified the manner in which frustration mingled with anger and finger-pointing Thursday as local officials reacted to the political and criminal-justice crisis spawned by the state high court’s ruling.

In the aftermath of that decision, county officials, continuing the rhetorical battle after they had already lost the war, doggedly defended their handling of the controversial proposition, characterizing their loss as a close legal call that simply went against them. Although both the high court and a Riverside County trial court had ruled the tax unconstitutional, they pointedly noted, the 4th District Court of Appeal had upheld its legality.

“When you’ve got some courts saying it’s legal and some saying it’s not, and a split decision at the Supreme Court, I don’t see how anyone can fault the county,” said Supervisor Susan Golding. “It’s all fine to engage in Monday-morning quarterbacking based on a court decision that didn’t exist until today. But, when these decisions were made, the legal advice that was available said this was a correct and proper way to structure it.”

The independence--or, in critics’ view, the lack thereof--of the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency was one of the pivotal legal questions in the Proposition A case.

Under Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 property-tax initiative approved by statewide voters, new special taxes require a two-thirds public vote for approval.

Subsequent propositions and judicial rulings, however, created a loophole enabling local governments to avoid that formidable two-thirds majority by setting up separate agencies to oversee “general governmental purposes,” such as jail and road construction. Taxes administered by such agencies require only a simple majority vote--a threshold both numerically and politically easier to attain.

Stirling’s legislation represented the county’s attempt to capitalize on that loophole by putting a sales-tax proposal needing only a majority vote on the ballot after a similar 1986 measure drew only 50.7% support, falling far short of the then-required two-thirds majority.

Stirling, however, said he expressed concerns about the Financing Agency’s composition from the start.

At first, the county preferred that the Board of Supervisors itself administer the Proposition A proceeds, estimated to total $1.6 billion over 10 years. When a legislative counsel advised that such a system clearly could not be defended as independent, the bill was changed to create a seven-member board including two supervisors, two representatives of local cities, two judges and the sheriff.

In Thursday’s decision, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency was “essentially controlled” by the supervisors and was merely a “purposeful circumvention” of the two-thirds majority mandated by Proposition 13. Proposition A gained only a narrow 50.6% majority.

Other local officials were quick to pounce on that part of the court’s ruling to sharply attack the supervisors’ performance on a critical issue that, while legally a county responsibility, affects every city in the county via its impact on the local criminal-justice system.

“The county blew it and blew it big,” complained San Diego City Councilman Ron Roberts. “It was the supervisors’ desire to control that money that led to this crisis. They set up this sham agency to do just enough to try to outsmart the courts, taking the risk of getting called on it. Well, they did, and it’s cost all of us.”

County officials, though, were as shocked as they were disappointed that the court had not agreed with their argument that the supervisors’ minority role on the agency demonstrated it was not, as opponents charged, more an “alter ego” of the county than an independent body.

In addition, John Sweeten, the county’s director of intergovernmental affairs, stressed that a legal opinion by the state legislative counsel said the seven-member board as constituted in the ballot measure was, indeed, legal.

“You add all that up, and there was no reason for us to do anything other than what we did,” Golding added. “This finger-pointing is irresponsible and juvenile, and I think there’s a political agenda behind a lot of it.” Her latter comment is a barely veiled barb directed at Roberts, who, like Golding, is expected to enter next year’s San Diego mayoral campaign.

But Dick Rider, the past president of the San Diego County Libertarian Party and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to Thursday’s decision, argued that the Financing Agency was “basically the county’s shadow.” The supervisors’ failure to further distance themselves from it, he added, reflected their “cavalier attitude toward voters and the Constitution.”

“I know those folks at the county tend to look at the Libertarians as a gnat on the ass of an elephant,” Rider said. “But we took a pretty good hunk out of their hide today, didn’t we?”

Rise and Fall of Proposition A

This is a chronology of events leading up to Thursday’s decision by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition A:

Nov. 4, 1986--A five-year sales tax that would fund a $420-million program for new jails garners 50.7% voter approval, far short of the required two-thirds majority required by Proposition 13.

1987--The state Legislature authorizes San Diego County to create the Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency, a special tax district designed to administer tax funds for courts and jails. County officials claim that, because it is distinct from the Board of Supervisors, a majority vote of the electorate will be enough.

June 7, 1988--County voters approve another ballot measure called Proposition A by 50.6%. The half-cent sales tax is designed to raise $1.6 billion for 10 years for new courts and jails.

July 5, 1988--Activists with the San Diego chapter of the Libertarian Party sue the county, alleging the measure needed two-thirds majority vote.

Jan. 1, 1989--Despite the unresolved challenge, the tax goes into effect, the proceeds held in an interest-bearing bank account.

March 23, 1989--A Riverside County Superior Court judge strikes down the tax, saying San Diego County officials “purposely circumvented” the two-thirds rule.

Sept. 4, 1990--A three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal reverses the decision, saying that a bare majority was enough.

Nov. 15, 1990--The California Supreme Court agrees to review the dispute.

Oct. 9, 1991--The state Supreme Court holds oral arguments.

Dec. 19, 1991--In a 5-2 decision, the state Supreme Court strikes down the tax, saying the measure required two-thirds voter approval. It tells the 4th District Court of Appeal to figure out what to do with the $330 million or so accumulated so far.