Supervisors Criticized for Holding Back on Spending : Finances: Between them, they had $6.2 million to disburse as each saw fit. But they kept two-thirds in reserve.

By FREDERICK M. MUIR

Sept. 8, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

At a time of shrinking budgets and growing demand for social services, the Los Angeles County supervisors last year spent less than a third of the $6.2 million they were given to support community programs and special events in their districts, county records show.

Some community activists were surprised, then angered, to learn that the supervisors held onto money earmarked for social, educational and public safety programs while trimming public services and rejecting pleas for financial assistance.

“They cut back on (social programs) and then are hoarding money? That’s immoral,” said Alice Callaghan, founder of Las Familias del Pueblo, a Skid Row social service agency. Even some conservative activists said the supervisors should spend the money or give it back to the general fund where it can be put to use on any one of dozens of county programs that have recently suffered the budget ax.

The supervisors are given about $1 million a year each to spend as they please on groups or causes in their districts. Records reveal that their spending habits and philosophies are varied, but overall the supervisors have been tightfisted with these county funds.

Two of the most conservative spenders--Supervisors Gloria Molina and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke--gave away less than $200,000 each last year. They said they chose to save most of their money while they developed sound spending strategies, and are now prepared to begin distributing most of the funds.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich spent less than a quarter of the funds available to him, saying he believes it is wise to hold most of the money in reserve for emergencies.

Supervisors Ed Edelman and Deane Dana dispensed their funds more freely, with Edelman handing out 65% of the money in his account and Dana disbursing about half. Aides for both men said they try to help as many groups as they can while holding a prudent amount in reserve.

The board created the unusual “discretionary funds” four years ago, in part to streamline the budgeting process, which was often burdened with a flurry of last-minute requests as the supervisors sought funds for pet projects.

The board started the 1993-94 fiscal year with $6.2 million in discretionary funds--$1 million for each supervisor plus a surplus carried over from previous years. The supervisors spent a total $1.8 million from these accounts and ended the year June 30 with a $4.4 million balance.

On July 1, the board allocated each member an additional $1.2 million for the new fiscal year, bringing the total account to $10.4 million, county records indicate.

Operators of nonprofit agencies said in interviews that the amount of money left unspent last year is significant, even in a community as large as Los Angeles County. Several cited various services that could have benefited from the money, from libraries to shelters for battered women.

“We are always, always, always looking for money,” said Leah Aldridge, project director for the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women.

The executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. said the supervisors should either spend the money for the intended purpose or turn it back to the general fund where it can be used to fund critical programs or reduce the need for new taxes.

“These aren’t children with some discretionary allowance,” said Kris Vosburgh. “These are public funds, intended for the use of the supervisors to meet critical needs and serve their constituents. If not, the county has other critical problems. . . . It should go back to the treasury.”

Supervisorial aides agree there is little question of the need in the community for these funds. Herb Wesson, chief of staff for Burke, said he spends at least 25% of his time with groups and individuals seeking funds.

But county records show that Burke spent less than 20% of the $1 million that was available to her last year. Of the $187,956 that she spent, more than one-third, or $70,000, went to the Sugar Ray Robinson Youth Foundation, with the rest spread among 23 other organizations.

Burke said she was slow to dispense her funds over the past fiscal year, her first full year on the job, because she needed time to develop a comprehensive program.

This year she intends to spend more of the money, which now totals about $2 million. She said she plans to keep a nest egg of about $300,000 and spend the rest on public safety and parenting programs. She and her staff were not specific about which programs would be supported.

Molina last year spent $199,607 of the $1.7 million in her discretionary fund. More than half--$117,000--went to the Sheriff’s Department and the balance was spread over eight other organizations.

“It’s not how much, but how you spend it that it’s all about,” Molina said. “ . . . We could give to every little Girl Scout troop and every baseball league, but I want to use it to have a major impact.”

Over the past year Molina’s staff has developed a series of programs designed to bring together law enforcement and parenting skills programs for the purpose of reducing truancy, enforcing curfews and curbing juvenile crime.

In the first eight weeks of the current fiscal year, Molina has spent $822,000 on these new programs--more than four times what she spent all of last year. Molina started the new fiscal year with $2.7 million in discretionary funds, and said she will probably spend most of it before the year is out.

Edelman spent $642,425 of his $1 million. Nearly one-third of the total--$200,000--went to the John Anson Ford Theatre, a county-operated open-air theater in Hollywood, with the rest spread among 39 other groups.

Dana was the most egalitarian spender, spreading $537,516 among 59 organizations, including the SANE drug program in several school districts, the Asian Pacific Agency, the YMCA women’s shelter and various juvenile diversion programs. He finished the year with about $650,000.

Antonovich spent $246,530 of the $1.4 million that was in his fund last year, giving it to 45 organizations. One of the largest expenditures, $55,000, was to subsidize his own staff expenses. Antonovich also contributed to a Volunteers of America drug program and the Parks and Recreation Department’s music festival.

Antonovich defended his rate of spending, saying it is only prudent to hold back some funds for uncertainties. He said he is now husbanding his resources in case of further budget cuts by the state, which could jeopardize important county programs. “We want the ability to backfill public safety programs,” Antonovich said.

County Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed said she was surprised by the large surpluses, which she noticed earlier this year. “I wish they’d do more of that,” the conservative budget chief joked.

Discretionary Spending

Each Los Angeles County supervisor was given $1 million last year to distribute to causes and organizations in his or her district. Combined with surplus funds from previous years, the board had $6.2 million to spend but distributed less than one-third. Here is a look at how each supervisor spent the personal discretionary fund.

Supervisor Gloria Molina

* Beginning balance: $1,669,661

* 9 expenditures totaling: $199,607

Balance at fiscal year end: $1,470,054

Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke

* Beginning balance: $1,011,158

* 24 expenditures: $187,956

Balance: $823,202

Supervisor Ed Edelman

* Beginning balance: $1,006,764

* 40 expenditures: $642,425

Balance: $364,339