Air Quality District Drafts Rebuttal to Critical State Audit

Officials at Southern California’s largest smog-fighting agency are mounting a point-by-point rebuttal to a new state audit suggesting that millions should be shaved from its budget.

In the wake of a report by the state Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is preparing a response to justify what state auditors say was unjustifiably high salaries, globe-trotting executives and excess office space.

A draft of the AQMD response report disputes the state’s contention that $6 million to $12 million could be cut from the Diamond Bar agency’s $97.1-million annual budget. In the report, pollution officials say some problems are already being solved and that other state recommendations are entirely off base.

“The report itself was inaccurate,” said Tom Eichhorn, the AQMD’s director of communications. “(On) maybe one or two trips, we wish we would have told our chairman to stay home. (But) by and large, it’s not easy for staff to tell the chairman that.”

As California’s largest regional air quality agency, the AQMD works to curb pollution in Los Angeles and Orange counties, and parts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Funding for the public agency comes primarily from fees levied on vehicles and businesses emitting pollution.

The first of what are to become annual, large-scale reviews of the AQMD, conducted last month, was mandated by the Legislature in 1994. Its findings are non-binding; AQMD board members are only obligated to review them before adopting a budget, said Air Resources Board spokesman Jerry Martin.

Although the AQMD is not funded from the state budget, auditors will also forward their report--along with the AQMD’s formal response--to the Legislature for review, Martin said.

Among other findings, the state audit contended that the district:

* Unwisely maintains salary levels 20% higher than commensurate state posts. It holds that the district could save about $4 million, even with a 10% cost-of-living allowance.

* Spent nearly a third of its $522,000 in travel during fiscal 1993-94 on out-of-area trips, including conferences from Miami to Aachen, Germany.

* Could supplement its budget by more than $2 million annually by renting unused space in its former El Monte headquarters and its Diamond Bar offices.

* At times uses district employees and contract lobbyists to provide the same function. The agency’s two contract lobbyists each earn $210,000 annually, according to the report.

Pollution officials say they have long been aware of nearly every major concern addressed in the report and have attempted remedies where appropriate. Both agencies agreed that minor adjustments are needed in several other areas.

“We always invite constructive analysis,” said board Chairman Jon D. Mikels, a San Bernardino County supervisor. Highlighted points “were some (areas) we were already working on,” he said. In its draft response, the AQMD defended its travel expenses by noting “the bulk of out-of-state travel is to Washington” to work with federal agencies. All AQMD travel is appropriate given “the complexity of the air-quality problem” in the region, the report says.

The AQMD draft response said there is no justification for a salary reduction, noting a 32% staff cutback via layoffs and attrition since 1990. It cited virtual parity in salaries between Southern and Northern California pollution districts--a more accurate basis for comparison, it said.

Eichhorn said the agency has been trying to lease vacant space in its former El Monte headquarters and its multilevel, green-and-white Diamond Bar facility, which is just above the Orange (57) Freeway.

“But the market is not as good these days,” he said.

He and other officials said the agency is in the process of reviewing its lobbying practices and is likely to begin relying solely on staff efforts.

Several AQMD board members declined comment this week, saying they had not reviewed either document yet. Others could not be reached for comment. But two members voiced concerns about possible waste at the agency.

“(The district’s response) is typical,” said AQMD Vice Chairman William A. Burke. “They probably got it from another agency that was audited two years ago.”