Bankruptcy Recovery Plan B Isn’t Making Supervisors More Popular

* As a city councilman, I find the latest bankruptcy recovery proposal (“Plan B for O.C. Would Hit Cities, Districts for Cash,” July 19) to be ludicrous and borderline criminal. The look of logic is manifested by Henry Kevane’s analogy of the state as an “allowance”-granting father to its children cities: “You’ve been getting a nickel every Saturday. Now he’s cutting back to three cents because your dad’s in trouble. That’s not stealing.”

What Mr. Kevane has not revealed is that Orange County is a “donor county.” For every dollar Orange County sends to Sacramento it receives 40 cents back. The remaining 60% is allocated by the state to counties whose taxes aren’t enough to pay for the services they provide.

I am irritated to see Orange County residents pay for services provided by the state and other counties, whose elected leaders have failed to live within their means. To make matters worse, some state elected officials arrogantly demand that Orange County residents solve “their” problems by either taxing themselves more or by cutting capital expenditures and depleting emergency reserves of city and district governments.

Why don’t we keep our tax dollars here and let “recipient counties” tax more for the services that they provide but that are paid for by Orange County dollars?

When the federal government can’t balance its budget it prints more money. When the state can’t balance its budget it takes money from the county, special districts and the cities. When the counties are in financial difficulty they raise fees to cities. When cities and special districts get fleeced by other governmental agencies, they have little choice but to either cut services or increase revenue from one source--the resident! Interesting that this city resident is the same taxpayer who sends tax money to the federal government, state government and county!

Who is granting whom the allowance? Who is stealing from whom?

JOHN COLLINS

City councilman, Fountain Valley

* Plan B for the Orange County bankruptcy makes Plan A look better more and more. . . .

BILL DALY

Brea

* Interim CEO Jan Mittermeier states that Bill Popejoy had difficulty working with the county supervisors because of his experience dealing with corporate boards. Not quite.

Corporate boards are elected at large with the specific responsibility to represent all shareholders. Unfortunately, county supervisors are elected by district and often have conflicting interests and political pressures. Is she saying that it is back to business as usual?

Ms. Mittermeier’s statement, although she did not intend it to, clearly calls for fundamental changes in organization and attitude if Orange County ever hopes to get out of the current mess. For example:

1. Supervisors must understand the difference between making policy decisions and micro-managing.

2. Board membership should be increased to seven, elected at-large and, more important, be part-time only. This will force prompt decisions and lessen territorial infighting.

3. There should be a two-term limit with elections staggered every two years to select either four or three supervisors to four-year terms. A supervisor could serve more than two terms only after being out of office at least two years.

4. Supervisors should have five or more years of private sector business experience.

Finally, everyone must understand that there is a fine line between bad luck and incompetence and that one must accept the responsibility that goes with authority.

LEWIS ELIA

San Clemente

* Several weeks have passed since the defeat of Measure R, yet numerous “No on Measure R” signs remain posted in public places. Do the opponents of Measure R expect city and county employees, whose jobs are often viewed as “fat,” to remove the signs for them? Perhaps the workers can take them down on their way to the unemployment office.

JOANNE FAWLEY

Anaheim

* There is no way in which I will vote to divert Measure M funds to other purposes.

Transportation is to a community as blood is to a person, necessary for survival, and, if the arteries become clogged, the organism is weakened. Orange County has a bad case of clogged arteries. Therefore, as a matter of civic responsibility, I voted for Measure M even though, with my being on a low, decreasing income (SSI), I cannot afford more taxes.

Of the plans which had been suggested, Measure R seemed to be the most logical and sure-fire way of obtaining funds to deal with the current crisis. Again, as a matter of civic responsibility, I voted for Measure R even though I cannot afford new taxes.

Diverting funds from Measure M is a different matter. I voted for it, as did other people, on the clear contract that these taxes be used for nothing except transportation; to abandon that contract would be a lack of integrity.

Diverting these funds would slow down the pace of much-needed transportation improvements either directly, by reducing the amount of money immediately available for current bills, or indirectly, by not honoring current bond obligations, thus making it harder to sell bonds in the future.

Furthermore, robbing Peter to pay Paul is always a bad, long-range strategy because it does not solve the problem but only postpones the day of reckoning.

JUANITA MATASSA

Santa Ana

* I have a real problem with those cities and special districts who are crying because they may not get back all the money they invested in the county pool. I thought that when you invested money, you took the good times with the bad. For many years, the county pool (yes, under Robert L. Citron’s guidance) made significant returns.

And were all those cities reviewing their investments from time to time as any normal investor would do? I think not. They are just as much to blame for their lack of responsibility as our “esteemed” supervisors for this financial debacle! They shouldn’t be let off the hook.

It is time for our city and county politicians to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their actions.

We, the voters who elected these folks, also must take our lumps. Yes, it will mean there will be sacrifices, lack of services, some increased costs to the individual.

DIANA HARDY

Santa Ana