Anti-Taxers Give Board More Grief

Victorious but still embittered opponents of the failed sales tax hike spurned an offer from county supervisors Thursday to join with old foes and forge a more acceptable bankruptcy recovery plan.

Speaker after speaker lashed out at the supervisors during a special Thursday meeting called, in part, to promote a new spirit of cooperation between the county’s elected leaders, a majority of whom favored the tax increase, and the people who spearheaded Measure R’s defeat at the polls.

The agenda item that generated testy exchanges between the supervisors and their Measure R foes was a joint proposal by Board Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez and Supervisor Roger R. Stanton to convene a July 19 public meeting of both pro- and anti-tax leaders.

While a handful of speakers offered their support, most were sharply critical of the supervisors as well as the proposed planning meeting.

“There’s an arrogance, a perceived pomposity here,” said Bill Ward, who accused the supervisors of continuing to cater to the desires of the losers of the failed Measure R campaign, rather than the taxpayers who won.

“The perception is it’s who you are that counts as to how much you’re listened to,” said Ward. “You’re listening to the wrong people. That is what got us into bankruptcy, I would submit.”

“And I would reject,” came the angry response from Vasquez.

“That, I think, is the problem. I rest my case,” Ward retorted, before strolling away from the podium to audience applause.

“We won, you lost--that’s the bottom line,” citizen activist Tom Rogers told the supervisors. “The people have won and you’re going to have to listen to them.”

Vasquez and Stanton had stressed that representatives from both camps would be welcome at the proposed get-together. One of the biggest points of contention, however, became the partial list of invitees the supervisors hoped would participate.

While outspoken Measure R critics such as Bruce Whitaker and representatives of the Committees of Correspondence were included, there were widespread complaints that the list was weighted in favor of tax supporters, such as Chapman University President James Doti.

“I thought it was a joke,” Rogers said in his complaint to the board, adding sarcastically that only high-profile developers and tax supporters such as Irvine Co. Executive Vice President Gary Hunt were needed to round out the group. Hunt was an active booster of the tax measure.

Many took glee in pointing out that tax supporters, who long contended there were no viable alternatives, would be contradicting their earlier positions if they were full participants in a process to devise solutions that didn’t rely on taxes.

Vasquez and Stanton were dismayed by the hostile reaction to their proposal. Stanton repeatedly tried to clear up misunderstandings that the forum would be some sort of advisory board or formal committee, and balked at suggestions the board was trying to curry favor with Measure R supporters.

Some of the confusion also came from the board itself. Supervisor Jim Silva said he was not in favor of a committee that would take the place of board authority.

Supervisor William G. Steiner also cautioned that he did not want to see a “love fest” where everyone agreed, but a “very aggressive debate” on the issues.

An exasperated Stanton shook his head, rolled his eyes and sighed.

“The only potential you have is for something good to come out of this,” Stanton said. “This is going back to the public meeting days of 200 years ago.”

Pleading for support from the public, Stanton stressed that the supervisors have a realistic view of themselves as the “temporary representatives” of the public.

“ Temporary is right,” heckled tax opponent W. Snow Hume of Fullerton.

Near the conclusion of the hearing, Whitaker, who became the leading spokesman of the anti-Measure R campaign, suggested that the supervisors’ conciliatory efforts may have come too soon after the heat of an election battle. “Maybe this . . . is premature. There are still high feelings on both sides.”