County Reform: Yes on B and C; Vote for Swanson and Watson

Change has been a major theme in the 1992 election campaign. And though the need for change in the White House, Congress and even the Legislature might be debatable, there is one very troubled level of government where change is not just necessary but inevitable: Los Angeles County.

Last week angry Los Angeles taxpayers heard yet one more persuasive voice weigh in with a reminder of how out of touch, and out of control, the cozy bureaucrats at the County Hall of Administration have been lately. A special Citizens Economy and Efficiency Commission, in a draft report on the county supervisors’ controversial vote increasing county pensions by $265 million despite severe budget problems, concluded that the secretive decision resulted from a lack of adequate control by the five supervisors over their chief administrative officer, Richard B. Dixon, and other top county bureaucrats. In its own careful language, that report echoed the county grand jury, which earlier blasted the pension vote as “the height of fiscal irresponsibility.”

Dixon has submitted his resignation as a result of public anger over the pension scandal, and it is still unclear whether the supervisors can legally reverse the pension vote. So if anything good is to come out of this latest mess in county government, it will be only that it helps persuade voters there’s still a need to shake up, and shape up, the Hall of Administration.

Things began to change last year when Gloria Molina, winner of a special election, became the first woman to serve on the board. But too often she has been a lonely advocate for the public’s interest. Voters in two supervisorial district could send her some all-important help Nov. 3 if they elect two more reform-minded candidates to the board: state Sen. Diane Watson and Rolling Hills Mayor Gordana Swanson.

Watson is running to succeed the retiring Supervisor Kenneth Hahn in the 2nd District, which covers South-Central and Southwest Los Angeles. Luckily for voters in the area, her opponent, former U.S. Rep. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, is also more than capable. Like Watson, she is a well-regarded political leader in the African-American community and likely to be an agent of change in county government. We have opted to endorse Watson because her admittedly go-get-’em style, like Molina’s, is more likely to get the attention of bureaucrats more accustomed to the low-key, caretaker style of other supervisors--such as Deane Dana.

Dana has been on the county board for 12 years, representing the 4th District, which covers the coast from Malibu to Long Beach. Though he has not been as resistant to change as some of his more conservative colleagues, his record has not been outstanding. Like most of the incumbent supervisors, he has a cozy relationship with developers and other big campaign contributors and is easily outspending Swanson. Some of his campaign literature claims that he is “leading the fight against obscene pension spiking,” but that’s absurd--in fact he did not react to the pension scandal until it became a campaign issue and in fact was one of Dixon’s staunchest defenders until he recently changed his position. By contrast the determined Swanson can offer voters a promising record of public service in Rolling Hills and on the Rapid Transit District board. She would bring dignified verve and presence to a board that has often seemed more interested in protecting its fancy perks than the public interest.

One cannot address the topic of change in Los Angeles County government without also noting that there are two important measures on the county ballot that voters should approve. Historic Proposition B would create a much-needed elected county executive to replace the chief administrative officer and provide checks and balances against the Board of Supervisors. And Proposition C would expand the board from five members--it has been at that number since the 1880s--to nine. Taken together these two measures, which would go into effect in 1994, could give county government the enormous lift it has for so long needed.

To be sure, voters can be forgiven for being skeptical about expanding the highest level of county government. The drafters of Propositions B and C wisely anticipated that concern, and wrote some important fail-safe mechanisms into the ballot measures. First, Prop. C cannot become law unless Prop. B also passes. That means the county board cannot be expanded unless a county executive’s office is created to help check the power of the supervisors. On the other hand, Prop. B could become law even if Prop. C failed. That means that, at the very least, county voters can elect an executive officer. That alone would be a huge help.

Second, in these days of extremely tight budgets and voter resistance to new taxes, the two propositions include a spending limit. The budget for all the new officials could not exceed the budget for the five current supervisors and the chief administrative officer. That’s a plus, for sure.

The time for change is long since past, and on Nov. 3 voters will have the best chance they have had in a very long time to make it happen. Vote the change ticket--”yes” on Measures B and C, and for the new political blood of Gordana Swanson and Diane Watson.