LOCAL PROPOSITIONS : C Would Add Deputies; Funds the Focus of B

Randy Dibbs, president of the San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., authored and lobbied heavily for Proposition C, which, if passed on Nov. 3, would almost double the number of deputies by 1997.

Dibbs calls the initiative “a necessity.”

“People understand, plain and simple, that there are not enough cops to do the job,” Dibbs said. “We have 1.16 deputies per 1,000 residents. The San Diego Police Department averages 1.64 officers per 1,000 residents. They’re already half an officer ahead of us.”

Dibbs said that, with the passage of Proposition C, the deputies’ association would reach its goal of having 2.25 officers per 1,000 residents by 1997. But the cost of such a plan is highly debatable.

Dibbs argues that the first full year of funding would run about $8 million and the second year about the same. But Dan Greenblat, the spokesman for Sheriff Jim Roache, said his boss has yet to endorse the plan because of the extreme uncertainty over cost.

He said Roache enthusiastically supports Proposition A, which, if approved--and a two-thirds majority is required--would ask the county to approve a half-cent sales tax to pay for more courts, jails and law enforcement.

The problem with Proposition C, Greenblat said, is that “we are, frankly, unclear about the fiscal impact. That can be argued many, many ways. We just haven’t seen a fiscal analysis we concur with. It could cost an inordinate amount of money.”

Even so, Greenblat said its passage--and the infusion of fresh deputies--would be a welcome relief, funding notwithstanding.

“We woefully need additional resources,” Greenblat said. “Whether you buy Randy Dibbs’ numbers or the (county) auditor’s numbers, which are much more severe, the additional personnel would be enormously helpful.

“The difference between A and C is, A has a long-term funding mechanism attached to it, while C is general-fund driven. If you believe that the county does have the funds to pay for it, then you would opt for C. If you believe the county is woefully in need of additional revenues, then you would opt for A. Either one benefits us.”

There is also Proposition B, which mandates that any ballot proposition that forces the county to spend money for new services must also provide a new funding source. For instance, if passed, Proposition C has no such funding source.

Greenblat, for one, called Proposition B “unconstitutional,” saying it “wouldn’t be binding” on programs that emanate from either the federal or state level.

“The only place it might have bearing would be on the local level, but even that’s debatable,” Greenblat said. “I understand the sentiment expressed by the (Board of Supervisors in putting it on the ballot). I’m just not sure it’s the proper mechanism.”

Dibbs, another critic of Proposition B, says it could lead to chaos.

“It could totally change the rules of the game,” he said. “You could have the county fighting the state and federal government, saying, for instance, ‘We don’t want smog devices, we don’t want gasoline taxes.’ It could get ridiculous.”

But fiscal conservatives and proponents of Proposition B say it’s needed because of propositions like the one Dibbs is sponsoring--C--which offers no funding source for the changes it implements, no matter how crucial they are.

County Supervisor Brian Bilbray, one of those who spearheaded Proposition B, says it’s “absolutely necessary.”

“People can’t go on demanding things without identifying resources,” he said. “It’s like a reality check. If you want to acquire something in your own family, any sane person should first figure out how he’s going to pay for it.”

Bilbray disputes Dibbs’ contention, saying that laws affecting air pollution, to name just one example, often offer funding attachments.

“The fact is, the whole issue of unfunded mandates is one (Dibbs) has ignored for too long,” Bilbray said. “Proposition B is simply a way of restoring common sense to the process, and to say it will lead to chaos is ridiculous. I see it as giving us just the opposite.”