Grand Jury Opens Review of County Budget Procedures : Government: Panel will study spending practices after controversies surrounding chief administrative officer.

The Los Angeles County Grand Jury has launched a review of the county budget process, after controversies surrounding the spending of tax dollars for bulletproof cars, gourmet lunches and office redecorating.

Jury foreman George S. Ackerman said in a letter to the Board of Supervisors that the citizens panel is studying “the office of the chief administrative officer’s budget and internal control practices.”

“The objectives of the grand jury’s study are to review the process for budgeting and expenditure control practices,” said the letter, a copy of which was obtained Thursday by The Times.

It was unclear whether the review will focus on the county’s entire $12-billion budget--which is drafted by the chief administrative officer--or on the office’s own $45-million budget.

Both have been criticized in recent months. The overall budget was criticized for being simplistic and lacking in detail. The chief administrative officer’s budget has been faulted for its spending on perks for supervisors and other senior officials.

In either case, the review may end up being a report card on Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon.

The grand jury is a civilian watchdog panel, appointed by judges, that is responsible for reviewing government operations and recommending reforms.

Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Gloria Molina said they believe that the grand jury review will focus on how the county allocates its $12-billion budget.

But Mary Jung, top assistant to Dixon, said she believes the review will focus on the chief administrative officer. “My understanding is that it is to review our department’s practices,” Jung said.

Ackerman could not be reached for comment on the scope of the study or on what prompted the review. Several jury members refused to discuss any aspect of the inquiry.

Dixon has been criticized for awarding $3 million in bonuses and spending $3.4 million more remodeling his suite of offices. Last week, Dixon again came under fire for maintaining an expense account that last year totaled $117,000 and paid for, among other things, gourmet lunches for county officials.

His wide-ranging authority also has come under scrutiny in the wake of a Times report last week that Dixon has more power to award contracts and rearrange department budgets than the governor or most big-city mayors, while enjoying the perks of a public official, such as a bulletproof car with a sheriff’s deputy as chauffeur.

The grand jury review was welcomed by Molina, who has criticized Dixon strongly.

“This is great,” Molina said, adding that she has offered to meet with the grand jury to discuss her concerns about a lack of accountability in the county’s spending of billions of tax dollars.

“We are going to call them and try to meet with them and see exactly what the scope of their study will be and express our interest,” Molina said.

Supervisor Ed Edelman said he was unaware of the grand jury’s interest in the budget until he received the notice from Ackerman on Thursday. “All we know is what’s in this letter,” said Edelman spokesman Joel Bellman. “We’ll just have to wait and see what they come up with.”

Antonovich called the review “nothing out of the ordinary.” Still, it is believed to be the first grand jury review to focus on the chief administrative office-- in a decade.

In his letter, Ackerman said the citizens panel will be assisted by a professional auditor, Price Waterhouse. Dale Crandall, managing partner in the Los Angeles office of Price Waterhouse, also declined to discuss the study.

An aide to Molina said the supervisor’s office was contacted a month ago by a grand jury member seeking information on the supervisor’s complaints about the county budget process.

Last summer, the newly elected Molina complained that it was difficult for her as a county supervisor to find out how the county spends tax dollars. The county budget process, she said, was unlike anything she had seen in her days as a member of the Assembly and the Los Angeles City Council.

Top county executives, including Molina’s colleagues on the board, have argued that there is no value in convening the kind of marathon budget deliberations conducted at City Hall and in Sacramento because, they say, 89% of the county budget is earmarked for services mandated by the state and federal governments, including the courts, hospitals and jails. The county also is required to fund welfare payments, which accounted for $2.2 billion of this year’s budget.

The supervisors also have given bureaucrats, particularly Dixon, broad authority to spend money as they see fit under a management philosophy that professional managers best know their department’s needs.

With a $45-million office budget, Dixon and his staff of 400 draft the county’s $12-billion budget, advise the supervisors on all aspects of county government, direct county lobbyists at City Hall, Sacramento and Washington, and oversee the county office of protocol and a team of scroll-makers.

Dixon has downplayed his power, describing himself as a mere “messenger boy” for the Board of Supervisors. He defended his remodeling project by pointing out that it was financed by savings from his office budget. He also said that the project was “not for my personal office” but was of 91,000 square feet of space occupied by his staff of 400.