O.C. Should Heed Some Timely Advice : Report on Municipal Services Deserves a Close Look

At a time when Orange County is desperately trying to recover from bankruptcy and the devastating losses in the investment pool it ran, it needs all the help it can get. One place to look for suggestions is a draft report from the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont-McKenna College.

Last June the county, cities in Orange County and a coalition of business, government and education leaders commissioned a $30,000 study from the Rose Institute. It was envisioned originally as an examination of the services and budgets of the county, the cities and special districts providing things like water and sewer services, with a special eye on possible ways to save money.

The loss of $1.69 billion in the investment pool and the declaration of bankruptcy in December has made the report even more timely. It does contain some suggestions of dubious value, but at a dire fiscal time all proposals and assessments of local government deserve a close look.

The report deservedly singles out for criticism the budget documents of most local governments. These tomes contain hundreds of pages of numbers but lack clear explanations of where the money comes from and where it goes. One helpful addition suggested by the report would be easily understandable summaries. That would assist both taxpayers and elected officials in understanding how much would be spent on what items under a proposed budget, how the outlays compared to previous years, and where the money would come from.

The report is also on the mark in suggesting that the county budget spell out programs the county is required to implement by the federal or state government and which ones are discretionary. Also helpful in the decision-making process would be clearly stated payroll costs, specifying salaries and benefits. That would allow residents and elected officials to conduct a more informed debate.

The Rose Institute report also recommends establishing standards to measure the efficiency of different government entities and programs. That is an appealing goal, but likely to prove too difficult to accomplish. Differences in the way governments perform similar functions and even in what it is elected officials and constituents think government should be doing make comparisons difficult.

One researcher said that the Rose Institute thought the county had too many employees who were paid too well, a debatable assertion. But the report is right to say that state raids on county funds made it increasingly difficult for the county to balance its budget and keep services at the same level. One result was increased pressure on the county’s investment fund to bring in more money.

Also worth study is the report’s section on special districts in Orange County, which are too numerous and too hidden from public sight. Usually it is left to county grand juries to pay attention to the districts, and they cannot keep tabs on the operations of all the districts as often as they would wish. The districts usually are thrust into the public eye only in the event of scandals.

The Rose Institute report contends that consolidation of most such districts would not reduce costs or raise efficiency, which is difficult to believe. But even if it were true, it would be easier to monitor special districts if there were fewer of them. Although some report recommendations are debatable, city and county officials would do well to heed its suggestions on communicating more clearly with each other and with the public. They would be wise to see which of the report’s suggestions can work well in their jurisdictions.