Accountability Key to County Reform : Charter Form of Government Is Promising Option

Common wisdom recommends that if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. But Orange County government is broken, and must be fixed. The county’s bankruptcy must be a catalyst for change.

Fortunately, a number of individuals and organizations have gotten that message. Representatives of county chapters of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters correctly called on the public to pay closer attention to local government.

At least two outside organizations are studying the operations of local government and can be expected to recommend fewer workers and as much privatization as possible. The cutting of government has already begun with the firing of more than 100 workers, by union count, as departments struggle to cut budgets to balance a deficit of more than $172 million over the next six months.

One alternative is to change the structure of county government from general law to charter, allowing for the appointment of a chief executive officer with more authority over all department heads. This is one way to ensure that there are reporting arrangements that give supervisors the ability to hold people accountable.

An appointed chief executive officer deserves consideration. It might be accompanied by letting the supervisors appoint some administrators, rather than have them elected. For example, both the incumbent public administrator and superintendent of schools have been solid performers, but making such positions answerable to a chief executive officer reporting to the supervisors would increase accountability.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron, whose investment practices led to a loss of more than $2 billion, was reelected last June and resigned last month just before the county filed for bankruptcy. The supervisors were told of his investments, though the extent of the disclosure and their understanding are disputed. But if Citron had not resigned, the supervisors could not have removed him without a lengthy struggle.

When the operations of the county recorder’s office were criticized, the supervisors took the unprecedented step of censuring the incumbent, Lee Branch, but they were powerless to do more. Branch held the office until being defeated at the polls. Had he been appointed, he could have been fired.

However, the desire of many for a streamlined form of government runs counter to the desire of others to temper the power of elected officials. Letting some department heads be answerable to voters checks and balances the supervisors’ power. And no matter what type of reform occurs, the district attorney and the sheriff will continue to be elected posts.

As the debate begins over how to reform county government, no one should lose sight of one key goal: building in accountability no matter what type of structure results.

Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino are among the dozen California counties that have charter forms of government, but in some instances the chief executive officers of those entities have been criticized for being too timid. Merely creating a strong chief executive position does not mean that the county will get the benefit of good management.

While changing to a charter government is a promising proposal, it would not lessen the responsibilities of county supervisors. It is the supervisors who will pick the chief executive, as they now choose the county administrative officer. It is their responsibility to monitor the performance of whoever holds that post. And it is the responsibility of the voters to monitor the performance of the supervisors.