Agoura Hills Recall Election Is Reasonable Expectation : Councilwoman Fran Pavley’s support of 4% utility tax ignored the advice of council’s own budget committee--just one in a series of bad decisions.

The Times’ response to the Agoura Hills recall election effort against Councilwoman Fran Pavley (“Reserve the Recall for Serious Misdeeds,” July 16) was not a surprise. The Times, in general, dislikes recalls, and I suppose that the best we could have hoped for was silence on its part. However, the editorial went beyond a normal statement of opinion by misstating the facts that caused the recall. The Times readers in Agoura will make up their own minds, but the one-sided presentation was a disservice to the community.

The editorial termed the recall “ill-considered.” This ignores the events leading up to Pavley’s support of the utility tax imposition, which prompted the recall. The Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, which reviewed the budget used as the reason for the tax, specifically recommended against new taxes, and recommended cuts instead. The City Council ignored the advice of its own committee.

The editorial then suggests that the recall punishment far exceeds the alleged crime. This begs the question of how we got into our current financial situation. A review of Agoura Hills’ previous budgets (best recommended for insomniacs) clearly shows that the city finances had been deteriorating for some time. For example, total assets dropped from $5.2 million in 1990 to only $1.5 million in 1993--a 71% drop--at which time the utility tax was imposed. The need to cut expenses had been clear for some time--but 1992 was an election year for council member Pavley.

*

The Times then falls on the familiar argument that recalls should be reserved for unethical or illegal acts. I’ll gladly accept this restriction. Inattention or just plain stupidity in elected officials meets both criteria. It was clear to each of the members of the council in 1992 that either cuts or taxes were going to be needed--unless they didn’t read their own budget.

If they knew what was coming and didn’t impose a tax because it was an election year, that’s unethical. If they didn’t know what was coming, then dereliction of duty sounds like the right charge.

The misdeed in all this is not just adding a 4% utility tax. This is only the latest in a series of bad decisions. The real reason behind the recall is the mismanagement and poor oversight that led to the $1-million budget shortfall in the first place.

The other familiar arguments--”More than one-third of California cities have such taxes” and “the majority are higher than 4%”--are familiar to anyone with teen-agers. The fact that other cities have mismanaged their finances is no excuse for Agoura Hills doing it. And by the way, Los Angeles County has a utility tax--and L.A. County’s finances don’t seem like the best model, as evidenced by the front-page story on its asset mortgaging in the same edition as the editorial. The presence of so many other cities with utility taxes is evidence of poor planning and bad decisions at the top--not good examples.

Will recalling Pavley reverse the tax? One vote of five, obviously, will not. However, Agoura Hills has a regular election this November, and if two other anti-tax council members are elected, we can reverse the tax. We would have had the other four council members facing a recall as well, but selective enforcement of the election code precluded that. Suffice it to say that the recall garnered more signatures than most of the council members had votes.

The Times closes by wishing us a “thoughtful kick in the pants.” It’s nice to see that meaningful civic discourse is alive at The Times. However, we’re already receiving a regular kick in the wallet every month from this ill-considered, irresponsible tax, and this citizenry has decided to kick back.