Style of Government Only Part of Solution : Charter or Not, County Needs Motivated Leadership

Among the many questions raised since Orange County declared bankruptcy one year ago was whether the very form of county government needed to be changed.

Unsurprisingly, the question has not received a definitive answer. And among those supporting a change, there have been divisions on how radical a reform is needed.

Last month, the Board of Supervisors rightly decided to let voters choose next March if Orange County should switch from a general law county to one governed by a charter. All counties are creatures of the state of California. General law counties, like Orange and 44 others of the 58 counties, are governed by state laws and the state constitution. Charter counties have an individual framework applied to themselves. That allows more latitude in topics such as the number of supervisors, which department heads are appointed rather than elected, and how much government work can be done under contract by private companies.

But the form of government does not guarantee that the government will work well. Orange County, ruled by general law, went bankrupt. Los Angeles County, governed by a charter, is perilously close to broke.

What counts is getting good people into government and alert residents keeping tabs on what is going on in the Hall of Administration. If changing forms of government results in a more alert, more effective and more accountable group of elected officials, residents will be better off. If not, the change merely becomes a form of bureaucratic musical chairs.

Last March, the Board of Supervisors appointed more than 30 people to a Charter Commission to determine if reforms were needed and, if so, what they should be. The commission voted for reform. It called for supervisors to set policy and let a strong chief executive officer carry out that policy. It recommended supervisors serve no more than two four-year terms. It urged making the county treasurer and some other officials appointive posts rather than elective.

There are arguments for and against those proposals. A wide-ranging debate on the proposed charter in the next 3 1/2 months will benefit everyone.

William J. Popejoy demonstrated the value of a strong CEO. But much of his strength came from his independence. A millionaire, he served more than five months for free and was willing to criticize his bosses, the supervisors, publicly. He was tough, but he needed to be. He made some mistakes, but on balance he was a breath of fresh air.

Some ideologues have used the bankruptcy and discussions of reform to advance an agenda of essentially doing away with government and privatizing nearly everything. That won’t work.

The county is charged by the state with carrying out various functions, from collecting taxes to administering programs to help those less well-off. To date, it has been those on the lower rungs of society’s ladder who have been most hurt by the bankruptcy as social workers were laid off and programs to help the poor were scrapped.

The county’s recovery from bankruptcy is still uncertain, with much hinging on the outcome of its lawsuit against Merrill Lynch. With a presidential primary also on the March ballot, voters will be bombarded with campaign pitches. But attention still must be reserved for the arguments over charter reform, which could change the shape of county’s government for the first time since it was founded more than a century ago.