Privatizing the EMA Is Bad Business

* I have just read the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) put out by the Board of Supervisors for privatizing the entire county Environmental Management Agency (EMA). The EMA has more than 1,000 employees with responsibilities for roads, flood control, harbors, beaches, parks, building plan check, land-use planning and a wide range of relationships with state and federal agencies as well as every city and special district in Orange County.

Nowhere in the RFQ is there any mention of a purchase price for buying the countless procedures, files, employee training and the guaranteed client base (i.e., taxpayers) that will be forced to come to the “buyer” of the EMA for service. The Board of Supervisors proposes to create a profit-making monopoly for the “buyer” without any capital investment by the “buyer,” who apparently will be given an asset developed over the decades at the taxpayers’ expense without any compensation to the county from the “buyer.”

Any engineering/planning firm that wished to buy another such firm would have to pay for the established business infrastructure and clients that the seller had built up. The value of the business monopoly being given away by the Board of Supervisors is probably worth more than $100 million. Why are the bidders for the EMA not required to include an offer of compensation for the business asset being traded?

Is this privatization scheme for the EMA (that is already 70% private) just another smoke screen being blown around by the Board of Supervisors to give the appearance of “radical change of government” while they are getting closer to the bond default deadline in June? The fact the EMA has zero impact on the bankruptcy whether it remains as is or is sold to a contractor makes me wonder why such a radical change with many unforeseen consequences is being rushed to conclusion by the Board of Supervisors without the benefit of review by their own Privatization Committee.

I have a suggestion. In 10 months we will have an election that will be our opportunity to “privatize” several sitting members of the Board of Supervisors who are presently wasting time and money on pointless “plans” whose only purpose is to delude the unwary into thinking they are worth reelecting.

ALAN J. NESTLINGER

Santa Ana

* On April 25 I sat in the board hearing room and listened with dismay as County Supervisor Roger R. Stanton made the recommendation to privatize the Environmental Management Agency. Did you know that EMA does not use general fund revenue (taxes), nor can its fees be diverted for other uses? EMA has nothing to do with the bankruptcy, and privatizing will not save taxpayers one cent.

Well then, why is the board trying to privatize EMA? Shouldn’t they be busy trying to pay for the bankruptcy they allowed to happen? How could Mr. Citron lose $1.7 billion right under the supervisors’ noses? Does the fact that he was lying exonerate the supervisors, or are they responsible for not having the proper system of checks and balances?

Privatization is another way to corrupt government, eliminating existing checks and balances, with kickbacks to supervisors for letting government contracts to their cronies and allowing developers to buy disastrous general plan amendments. After an embarrassing history-setting bankruptcy, do we want Chicago-style politics?

I am not suggesting that a bureaucracy is cheaper than the private sector, but it is less susceptible to political corruption and graft than privatization would be. Instead of privatizing, why not have a private auditor, selected by the CEO, review departments’ efficiency and staff levels biannually?

LYNDA TAYLOR

Cerritos