Work on Charter Proposal Proceeding Quietly

Attendance at the Orange County Charter Commission’s public meetings has been so poor that Chairman Bruce W. Sumner considered it a “pretty good turnout” when 25 people showed up at the last forum in late June.

Still, the retired Superior Court judge believes more people should be concerned with a panel that is aiming for nothing short of revolutionizing Orange County government.

“I’d like to see more people getting involved, but I haven’t lost the faith,” Sumner said. “My concern is [that] when this commission has finished its job and comes up with a plan for the future, we’re going to have people from all over saying, ‘What? Where did this come from? I wasn’t aware of this!’ ”

The commission has been working for the past four months without much fanfare, holding public meetings across the county to gather public comment on a proposed March ballot measure. The initiative, if approved, would change Orange County from a general law county to a charter county, a move that would give voters greater say over governance issues.

Ideas being considered by the 33-member charter commission, which grew out of Orange County’s fiscal woes, include a part-time Board of Supervisors, a powerful, elected county chief executive officer, privately run jails, salary caps for county employees and an appointed county treasurer who could be fired at will.

Except for the stigma of bankruptcy, the work of the Orange County Charter Commission could be the longest-lasting legacy of the financial disaster.

“I think this is perhaps the most important thing that we’re doing right now,” said Supervisor Marian Bergeson, one of two supervisors on the commission. “This could have a dramatic impact on how the county is run.”

The most sweeping change that comes with adopting a charter is breaking away from state rules for running a county.

For example, unlike general law counties, charter counties can make the treasurer and tax collector posts appointive, not elective. Charter counties also have more freedom when it comes to privatizing services, determining how a Board of Supervisors will be elected, and crafting the county structure of power and accountability.

The commission expects that voters will answer a simple yes or no question on the March ballot. But general charter language will outline basic governance issues, such as whether supervisors will continue to be elected from specific districts or at large. The charter is also expected to give the supervisors authority to pass ordinances to carry out the charter’s will.

*

In the wake of the Dec. 6 bankruptcy, there have been demands for a restructuring of Orange County government. Supervisors, after complaining that their hands were tied by the state, responded by appointing the charter commission earlier this year.

But critics say supervisors have failed to wield the powers of change that are already in their grasp. Many of the changes supervisors seek, such as making the treasure an appointed position, can be accomplished by calling a special election or seeking legislative relief, critics say.

While acknowledging that the county faces some limitations under state laws, Bruce Whitaker, spokesman for the Committees of Correspondence, an activist group, said the county hasn’t taken even the most basic steps toward change.

“They have plenty of room and a long way to go before they come up against the obstacles they keep talking about,” he said.

Alvin Sokolow, a public policy specialist and political scientist at UC Davis, said many county voters will be skeptical of becoming a charter county.

“The voters will be asking themselves, ‘What’s the critical need that justifies change at this point?’ ” Sokolow said. “Orange County voters are suspicious of change now. In many ways, this [charter vote] will be symbolic for Orange County.”

But Bergeson disagreed that relief is easily at hand, noting that recent legislative efforts to allow for greater privatization failed.

“It’s not easy to get things done through the state,” she said. “This is another option.”

Supporters of a charter point to the trouble the board faced as it tried to respond to the fiscal crisis that occurred after the county’s investment pool lost $1.7 billion because of a risky investment strategy followed by Robert L. Citron, then the county treasurer-tax collector.

Because both Citron and Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis were elected officials, the supervisors could not summarily fire them. Citron resigned and subsequently pleaded guilty to six felonies. Lewis, who allegedly failed to detect questionable fiscal practices, has denied any wrongdoing and remains in office.

Under a charter government, the board could convert those positions to appointive posts, giving supervisors absolute hiring and firing power.

*

The charter commission is also concerned with giving more power to voters who are fed up with the work of county government and are demanding change. But there is some disagreement on what kind of change would be best.

Whitaker of the Committees for Correspondence, for example, says county officials such as Citron and Lewis should be elected and held accountable to the public.

County employees fear they may become victims of a change to charter status because supervisors would have greater power to privatize any county service and the ability to tamper with the pay, benefits and size of the work force. A majority of commission members recently endorsed including privatization in their proposal, with labor union representatives voting to reject it.

“We are concerned about privatization where it violates employee contracts,” said Linda Pierpoint, staff manager for the 11,000-member Orange County Employees Assn.

Bergeson has been among those calling for a part-time Board of Supervisors and a powerful, full-time CEO. But there is opposition to that proposal as well.

“A full-time board is key to ensuring the best representation for the people of Orange County,” said Supervisor Jim Silva, who is also a commission member. “I think there has to be checks and balances between the board and a CEO, or someone in that position.”

No matter how many people show up, a fiery debate is certain July 27, when the commission holds a public meeting to address the governance issue.

The commission hopes to draft the charter language later this year and present the proposal to the Board of Supervisors, which has final say. If approved by the board, the measure would go before voters during the March primary. A majority vote is needed for passage.

Only 13 of California’s 58 counties are charter governments. Orange County has considered the change in the past, but the panel studying the issue rejected the idea in part because amendments to the charter would require another vote.

“That’s the biggest drawback,” said Sokolow.

But Sumner, who was involved in an early Orange County charter study, said his goal is to add built-in flexibility to the charter language that would allow the supervisors to make changes and refinements via ordinances.

“It works great here,” said Paul Scannell, assistant manager of San Mateo County, who added that the county’s charter is crafted that way. “The major advantage is that it gives the people a little more authority.”

*

But others have attacked the entire process as simply a group of insiders carrying out the will of the board.

“I don’t think anything is likely to change,” complained Art Montez of the League of United Latin American Citizens, who said the commission is not doing enough to include minorities and the working class in its discussions.

Connie Haddad, president of the local League of Women Voters, is also concerned that the commission may be hasty in its decision making, especially in light of the fact that few Orange County voters have taken an interest in the unusual process.

Bergeson said she hopes the controversy at least sparks more interest and participation in the commission’s work.

“I think the charter has been a great opportunity for debate and discussion, the more the better,” she said. “I hope they will come out and express that at the next meeting.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Pondering a Change to Charter

The Orange County Charter Commission is drafting ballot language that would allow voters in March to adopt a county charter. Here are key differences between a charter and general law county and some of the arguments for and against it:

General Law County

Requires elections to fill variety of agency or department head posts, including treasurer, auditor and recorder. Supervisors are elected from districts for four-year terms. Legislative guidelines limit privatization, consolidating certain county offices and long-term use of temporary employees. All but 13 of California’s 58 counties are general-law counties.

* Pros: Gives elected department heads autonomy and accountability to public. Provides uniform governing guidelines throughout state. Voters have power to make certain positions elected or appointed.

* Cons: Supervisors cannot fire elected officials at will. State’s minimum requirements for elected posts allow those with little or no background experience to take office. Inability to privatize, consolidate on a wide-spread scale.

Charter County

Supervisors can be elected by district or countywide approval. With exception of supervisors, sheriff, district attorney and assessor, positions previously elected can be filled by appointment. Greater freedom to consolidate offices, privatize services, cap county employee wages and benefits.

Pros: Voters can decide whether supervisors should be part-time, how long they should serve and whether there should be an elected “mayor” or chief executive officer. Voters also can approve or reject privatizing or consolidating services.

* Cons: Amendments to the charter require voter approval, an expensive and time-consuming process.

Meeting Information

The Charter Commission holds its next meeting July 27 at 6 p.m. at Chapman University’s Irvine Auditorium. Topic: How Orange County should be governed. Other meetings are set for Aug. 24 in Irvine, Sept. 28 in Fullerton or Brea and Oct. 26 at the Hall of Administration in Santa Ana. For details and meeting sites yet to be announced, contact Commission Chairman Bruce W. Sumner through Supervisor Jim Silva’s office, (714) 834-3220.

Source: Orange County Charter Commission

Researched by RENE LYNCH / Los Angeles Times