Supervisor Dana Urges Dixon to Quit County Post : Government: Board chairman changes position, citing grand jury report critical of chief administrative officer.

Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Deane Dana on Thursday called for the resignation of embattled county Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon--an election-year turnabout that could end the five-year reign of a man billed as one of the “most powerful public administrators in America.”

Dana, locked in a tough reelection bid, said it would be “in the best interests of the people of Los Angeles County” if Dixon stepped down. He said his decision was based on a critical Los Angeles County Grand Jury report that found Dixon spent lavishly on a $6.1-million office remodeling project, destroyed public documents relevant to the project and operated with unchecked powers.

If Dixon does not leave voluntarily, Dana said he will ask supervisors to fire Dixon on Tuesday, after a board hearing on the grand jury report.

Although Dana’s motion is unlikely to succeed next week--three of the five supervisors either support Dixon or are undecided--it could be renewed in December, when a new board member is seated to replace retiring Kenneth Hahn. Both candidates for Hahn’s seat favor Dixon’s ouster.

Dixon did not return phone calls Thursday. In addition to the grand jury findings, he has been criticized for extravagant spending on executive bonuses, a $265-million increase in pension benefits and making too many decisions behind closed doors. Dixon has defended himself in the past by saying he only does the board’s bidding.

Dana’s announcement was hailed by Supervisor Gloria Molina, until now the only voice on the board pushing for Dixon’s removal.

“I am glad that Supervisor Dana now agrees that it is time for the board to reassert its leadership role and call for Mr. Dixon’s resignation,” Molina said from New York City, where she is attending the Democratic National Convention.

“Mr. Dixon’s programs of executive bonuses, transportation allowances, pension padding and his $6-million office renovation during a time when demands for county services have increased significantly, and funds from the state and federal governments have been drastically slashed, are inexcusable,” Molina said. “It’s time for this board to start reprioritizing the needs of this county with a CAO we can trust.”

But the other supervisors, who have all voted in the past to retain Dixon, were sharply critical of their colleague, who just six months ago refused to go along with a move to fire Dixon. At the time, Dana said: “The reason the county is in better financial shape than other governments is because we have a good CAO.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich on Thursday charged that Dana’s change of position was motivated by his reelection bid.

“Making such a judgment (to fire Dixon) without full knowledge of the facts shows political panic and weakness,” Antonovich said. “He’s acted as a hanging judge, without the benefit of a hearing.”

Hahn said: “He’ll do anything, say anything, go anywhere to get reelected. It’s an old political act when you get desperate.”

Antonovich, who has consistently supported Dixon, said he will wait for the hearings before making a decision on the chief administrative officer’s status.

Hahn restated his belief that “Mr. Dixon is the best CAO in America. . . . I advised him to stay and do his job. It’s not right to remove a captain in stormy seas. We are certainly in stormy financial seas and need the best possible man in the job.”

Supervisor Ed Edelman said he is waiting for Tuesday’s hearing before making a decision.

Dana’s opponent in the November election, Rolling Hills Mayor Gordana Swanson, supported Dana’s new point of view, but charged that it is “absolutely politically motivated.”

“If Deane was not asleep at the wheel,” she said, “he would not need the grand jury to tell him what’s going on.”

Still, Dana said there were sound reasons for his decision to seek Dixon’s removal. “Public confidence in Mr. Dixon’s performance has been severely damaged by a succession of allegations, the most recent being the findings of the Los Angeles grand jury . . . regarding the destruction of public records relating to the controversial remodeling of the CAO’s office and staff facilities,” Dana said in a statement.

“After closely examining the grand jury findings, I can only conclude that Mr. Dixon’s effectiveness has been irreparably damaged,” he added. “Valuable time and energy that should be spent addressing the severe budget needs of the county are being diverted.

“We cannot afford that diversion, nor can the people of Los Angeles County. For these reasons, Mr. Dixon should resign.

“When I’m talking with constituents they raise the question (about Dixon) . . . it’s right at the top of their list,” Dana said.

Dana said he met with the official Thursday morning and delivered his request that Dixon step down. “He was shocked . . . and disappointed,” Dana said.

In an interview this year, Dixon said he does not form county policy, but only carries out board philosophy.

“You can describe my job as having all sorts of power and prestige, but when it comes right down to it, I’m just their messenger boy,” Dixon said then. “I really have nothing they don’t give me.”

In the highly critical report released in June, the grand jury found that Dixon exercises unchecked control over public funds, spending millions of dollars without notifying the Board of Supervisors. But the report also criticized the Board of Supervisors for giving Dixon open-ended authority that allowed him to operate without public oversight.

Supervisors voted in 1988 to give the chief administrative officer authority to approve contracts for financial, economic, accounting, engineering and administrative services of “virtually any size.”

Earlier this year, a Times survey of other large counties in the state showed that none give such broad authority to non-elected officials. In most counties, bureaucrats are limited to expenditures of $25,000 without approval from their boards of supervisors.

Among the grand jury’s most damaging findings was that Dixon had discarded virtually all documents related to the controversial renovation of his offices and spent twice what the board had publicly authorized for furniture.

Members of the grand jury said they ordered the audit “after receiving news reports and complaints concerning allegedly questionable personnel and fiscal practices.” A series of stories published this year by The Times detailed Dixon’s extraordinary authority to spend public funds and the expensive perks that go with his job.

Dixon earns about $200,000 a year in salary and benefits, which include a bulletproof car with a sheriff’s deputy as chauffeur. He has an open-ended expense account, which amounted to $117,000 last year.

Dana’s vote to remove Dixon could mean that the official will be gone by year’s end.

If Dana maintains his position, the winner of the race to succeed Hahn would provide a third vote needed to remove Dixon.

On Thursday, both candidates in that race reaffirmed their call for Dixon’s dismissal. Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) said the Board of Supervisors “should now make it clear to Mr. Dixon that he is out of step with the reforms that are coming to county government and that he must leave.”

The other candidate, former Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, said: “There’s no choice. He’s put a bad label on the county of Los Angeles. He has to go.”

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this story.