Crime Victims New Weapon in Wilson’s Budget Battle : Politics: Plan misfires because the governor earlier had proposed cutting rape crisis centers and other such programs.

A Wilson Administration attempt to use crime victims as weapons in the state’s budget battle went awry Monday when a victims group accused Democratic lawmakers of trying to cut deeply into rape crisis centers and other victims programs.

In fact, Wilson himself proposed cutting those programs when he offered his budget in January, according to Administration documents. Then, after Democrats restored the money, Wilson cut it again when he offered a revised budget in July. He wanted to use the disputed funds instead to increase spending on police officer training.

“This is pathetic pandering,” said Democratic Assemblyman John Vasconcellos of Santa Clara, chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, after a news conference orchestrated by Wilson’s office. “It’s sad that the governor has reduced himself to manipulating crime victims to make himself look good.”

The discrepancies became apparent after the news conference and the crime victim advocates were not available for comment. The governor’s office was researching the matter late Monday but a spokesman insisted that the Administration proposal would be better for law enforcement overall because it leaves more money for local government.

The crime victim programs are a tiny part of the state budget--about $22 million in a $58-billion spending plan. But Monday’s incident underscored the raw-knuckles political battle under way in the Capitol as both houses of the Legislature prepare to vote on Wilson’s latest proposal and a competing measure backed by Democratic leaders.

The Assembly and Senate met Monday but did not vote on the still-evolving package of budget legislation, which is expected to include the two competing versions of the line-item spending plan and a dozen or more “trailer bills” needed to make either budget work. Votes may begin as soon as today in the Assembly, where Democrats were making last-minute adjustments Monday night in hopes of luring support from GOP lawmakers.

One of Wilson’s principle criticisms of the Democratic plan is that it cuts so much from counties and special districts that it would, he said, gut police and fire services offered by those agencies. At the news conference, the governor surrounded himself with several police chiefs and district attorneys to press his point.

Also present on the platform with the governor were representatives of three crime victim groups, who have been allied with Wilson since he sponsored a law-and-order ballot initiative in 1982 and then helped oust California Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird in 1986.

Harriet Salarno of San Francisco, founder of a group called Justice for Murder Victims, lashed into Democrats for trying to reduce money for crime victim assistance, including rape crisis centers and domestic violence programs. She described the Democrats’ budget as an “abandonment” of crime victims.

“The crime victims network in California is outraged that the Legislature would even consider slashing support for desperately needed victims services,” Salarno said. Afterward, she told a reporter that the Democratic budget would devastate local programs, which she said are struggling.

Salarno urged women throughout California to rally to Wilson’s side.

But according to Administration budget documents, Wilson in January proposed cutting $2.2 million from last year’s $24.9-million budget for victims services. Wilson wanted to cut $1.6 million from the Victims/Witness Assistance program; $500,000 from rape crisis centers, and $150,000 from a program for victims of child sexual abuse. Each cut represented about 15% of the money spent on those programs last year.

Later, when more money became available in a special fund from the sale of assets forfeited by criminals, Democrats reinstated the money Wilson had cut from the child sexual abuse and rape crisis programs and restored part of his reduction in the Victims/Witness Assistance program, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst’s office, which tracks budget actions.

Wilson wanted to use the entire $3.1-million windfall from the sale of criminals’ assets to raise spending on police officer training. When he released his revised budget July 1, that was where he put the money. He cut the victim assistance programs again.

The victims programs were “not our first choice in proposing the use of those funds,” said Calvin Smith, a manager in Wilson’s Department of Finance.

In a separate action, the legislative conference committee also ordered a $10-million cut from the $21.7 million that the state grants local law enforcement agencies for crime-related programs. Only about $1.6 million of that $21.7-million budget is in services to crime victims, which the committee directed be given first priority for the remaining money. And the three programs that Wilson cut and Democrats restored would not be affected at all.

Craig Cornett, who follows criminal justice issues for the Legislative Analyst, said the committee’s $10-million cut could be made without touching victims programs. But even if those programs took the maximum hit, they would still be better off overall than in the governor’s budget, he said.

“It would be the Administration’s decision,” Cornett said. “If they think victims programs are a lower priority than some of these others, they are going to do those cuts anyway. But it’s up to them.”

Smith acknowledged that the Administration could spare the victims programs. “You don’t have to hit there,” he said.

But he noted that other programs that stand to lose from the $10-million cut in grants from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning involve crime prevention or supplemental funds for local prosecution. In that sense, he said, they may not help victims of crime, but they prevent people from becoming victims.

Dan Schnur, Wilson’s chief spokesman, questioned the sincerity of the conference committee’s directive to preserve victims services in the face of the committee’s 46% reduction in money available for local grants.

“That’s like cutting welfare grants to $5 a month and then telling mothers to target their remaining money on food and rent,” Schnur said. “Once you’ve harmed someone that much, it doesn’t matter what you tell them to do at that point.”