O.C. Supervisors Set March Ballot Vote on Charter Reforms : Government: Proposal could dramatically change county political structure. Board opts not to vote on more radical proposal from coalition of activists.

Setting the stage for a historic vote that could reshape Orange County’s bankrupt government dramatically, the Board of Supervisors agreed late Tuesday to place a county charter proposal on the ballot next March.

The 5 to 0 vote came after hours of emotional testimony from both supporters and critics of the charter, which would establish a strong chief executive officer to run the county, convert four offices including treasurer from elected to appointed ones, and limit supervisors to two four-year terms.

The supervisors also placed a companion measure on the March 26 ballot that will ask voters whether they want to expand the Board of Supervisors to nine members or keep it at five.

“This offers tremendous hope for the county,” Supervisor Marian Bergeson said of the charter proposal.

The board opted not to vote on a request by a coalition of anti-tax and civil rights activists to also place on the ballot an alternative charter proposal that calls for more radical reforms.

The board’s action came a day after the release of a public opinion survey conducted by UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology that found broad support among residents for government reform, including increased privatization of county services and the creation of a powerful county executive.

Before the vote, the supervisors listened to speakers discuss the merits of the proposal as well as the more radical ballot measure.

“If you only put the bureaucratic, top-down charter on the ballot, you will clearly tell me you are not really interested in a solution for our current political problems,” speaker Thomas M. Whaling said.

However, Bruce Sumner, chairman of the charter committee, called on the supervisors to reject the alternative proposal.

“You asked us to do a job and we did it,” Sumner said. “If at the eleventh hour you’re going to consider a proposal never presented to the commission for review, why did you appoint the charter commission?”

The charter, drafted over 10 months by a 33-member commission appointed by the board, would give the chief executive officer the power to hire and fire employees. It also would create a system for contracting of some county services.

The idea of transforming Orange County from a general law to a charter county was suggested soon after the county filed for bankruptcy last Dec. 6, which was precipitated by a $1.7-billion loss to a county-run investment pool.

The financial crisis came about because of risky investment decisions made by then-Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron, an elected officeholder who was outside the direct control of the county’s supervisors.

A charter is an individually crafted set of laws. Only 13 of California’s 58 counties have charters. The rest, including Orange County, are governed by general laws set down by the state. A charter would give the county the ability to privatize county services beyond what state law allows.

To proponents, a charter would give the county the tools needed to reform government and create safeguards against a system breakdown such as that which allowed the bankruptcy.

But some public interest groups, including the League of Women Voters, have questioned whether the county actually needs a charter. League members point out that charters sometimes become the subject of litigation and that any changes, even technical ones, must be approved by voters.

League members said Tuesday that the supervisors should put the commission’s charter on the ballot, but they had not yet decided whether they would support it.

Just weeks after the bankruptcy, the Board of Supervisors responded to the growing calls for government restructuring by forming the commission charged with creating a draft charter.

The commission consists of two supervisors and representatives from cities and schools, county government, anti-tax groups, business and law.

Since February, the commission held dozens of meeting, dissecting a wide range of proposals.

But divisions on the commission quickly developed, with a vocal minority complaining that the commission’s charter did not go far enough in reforming government.

The commission rejected proposals by the Orange County Business Council to make the post of supervisor a part-time job and to reduce board members’ salaries. Commissioners said supervisors cannot represent their constituents effectively working part time.

In August, dissident commissioners began holding weekly meetings with other activists at a Carl’s Jr. restaurant in Placentia to draft their own alternative charter.

The two proposals before the supervisors Tuesday reflect sharply different views of what caused the bankruptcy and how county government should be run. The commission’s charter establishes the Board of Supervisors as a policy-making body and leaves day-to-day operations in the hands of a chief executive officer.

The charter attempts to deal with Citron’s risky investments by converting the treasurer’s position and three others from elected to appointed posts. The change is designed to have the jobs filled with the most qualified candidates and not simply with those who garner the most votes. Under the current system, neither the CEO nor the supervisors can fire the treasurer for any reason.

The alternative charter proposal, on the other hand, strengthens the powers of the supervisors and places various restrictions on county bureaucrats, including an eight-year term limit for department heads.

The alternative charter also maintains the treasurer as an elected post and creates two new offices: coroner and transportation director. It also establishes a variety of committees designed to oversee county officials.

Patrick Quaney, an author of the alternative charter, said the document seeks to give supervisors the powers they need to govern the county effectively and check the influence of county bureaucrats.

The alternative charter contains a variety of controversial provisions sure to elicit legal challenges if adopted. It would allow voters to check “none of the above” on all county ballots and would set up a citizens’ oversight committee with subpoena powers to monitor law enforcement activities.

Proponents of the county’s draft charter point out that all the ideas contained in the activists’ alternative were reviewed, but ultimately rejected, by the commission.

They also said that the commission tried to limit the charter to provisions not already covered by state laws.

Times staff writer Matt Lait contributed to this story.