Charter Proposal Draws Vocal Critics

By SHELBY GRAD

March 4, 1996 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

When the county charter was placed on the ballot three months ago, it seemed destined for easy passage.

An impressive assortment of good-government advocates, business leaders and supervisors quickly praised the measure and said it would make county government more effective and accountable after the December 1994 plunge into bankruptcy.

To bolster their case, supporters pointed to a UC Irvine poll that found wide public support for the types of reforms proposed in the charter, including the contracting out of some services and the establishment of a strong chief executive to manage county affairs.

But a funny thing happened on the way to election day.

The charter--Measures T and U on the March 26 ballot--has become an unexpected punching bag for a small but vocal group of political figures, candidates and activists.

In the race for two open supervisorial seats, most contenders oppose the measures, as do a diverse array of individuals from ultra-conservative former Rep. William Dannemeyer to James Toledano, head of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee.

Opponents are attempting to portray the charter debate as a sequel to Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase plan that voters overwhelming rejected last year.

“It’s the same song, just the second verse,” said Patrick Quaney, an anticharter leader.

Critics insist that the ballot measures would allow local governments to raise taxes in violation of Proposition 13--a contention that even some charter foes consider dubious.

Still, the antitax theme is generating new interest in what was expected to be a quiet race.

Despite the criticism, supporters said they remain optimistic that voters will recognize the wisdom of the charter as the election nears.

“I think people will realize the importance of these measures on the future of Orange County,” said Bruce Sumner, the retired judge who headed the commission that drafted the charter. “I think they will understand what a unique opportunity we have before us.”

Only 13 of California’s 58 counties have charters, which are individually crafted sets of laws. The remainder, including Orange County, are governed by general laws set down by the state.

Measure T asks voters to approve a charter that was drafted over a 10-month period by a county panel made up of more than 30 elected officials, business leaders, bureaucrats and others.

Measure U asks voters to decided whether the Board of Supervisors should be expanded from five to nine members.

Charter authors said their document is designed to repair the structural flaws in government exposed by the bankruptcy, which was precipitated by the $1.64-billion loss to a county-run investment pool. The losses were blamed on the risky investment strategies of former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron.

The charter would establish the Board of Supervisors as a strictly policy-making body and limit members to two consecutive four-year terms. It would place day-to-day management of the county in the hands of a chief executive officer with the power to hire and fire top managers.

Under Measure T, four elected county posts--treasurer, auditor, public administrator and clerk--would become appointed positions. The goal is to fill the jobs with the most technically qualified candidates, not simply those who can get elected.

The charter would also make it easier for the county to contract with the private business for services and would require frequent public reports on county investments.

“This is a framework that allows the county to begin developing an appropriate way to govern itself,” said Todd Nicholson, executive director of the Orange County Business Council, which endorsed Measure T. “We feel very strongly that this provides the needed accountability and accessibility through the process.”

Sumner, the chairman of the Charter Commission, dismissed the criticism posed by opponents, saying they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

“You’d imagine that people running for the Board of Supervisors would not want term limits and would not want a strong CEO,” Sumner said. “It’s about job security. . . . A ‘no’ vote is for keeping things the same as they are now.”

Backers are also quick to reject contentions that Measure T might leave Orange County unprotected by tax-limiting laws such as Proposition 13. State tax laws automatically supersede county charters, Sumner said, and the commission purposely decided against including provisions in the document that duplicated state law.

“The charter simply doesn’t give any taxing authority,” Nicholson said.

Even some Measure T foes, including County Clerk-Recorder Gary L. Granville, agree that the charter does not remove state tax protections. But they maintain the proposal would send the county in a troubling direction and should be defeated.

County government “has slipped from the control of elected officials and to the bureaucracy,” said Granville. “There’s no downsizing. No streamlining. No innovation. All this charter does is empower the bureaucracy even more.”

Opponents said the charter would concentrate too much power in the hand of the chief executive officer. It would also diminish the influence of voters by converting elected posts into appointed ones, they argue.

“It assumes that those doing the appointing have more wisdom than those doing the electing,” said Granville, noting that Citron was originally appointed to office by the Board of Supervisors.

“People don’t want to give up their right to vote,” added Quaney, the anticharter activist. “The whole proposal is very elitist.”

The charter campaign is not expected to produce the big campaign contributions and expensive direct-mail drives that marked the Measure R fight. So far, the Measure T campaign is being waged mostly at debates sponsored by service clubs and civic organizations.

“Our hope is that through the forums, people will understand the difference between the system now in place and the one being proposed,” Nicholson said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Charting a New Way

On March 26, voters will decide whether to adopt a charter for Orange County. About a dozen of California’s 58 counties have charters. The remainder, including Orange County, are governed by general state laws. The charter would:

* Place the county chief executive officer in charge of day-to-day operations.

* Establish the Board of Supervisors as a policymaking body.

* Convert several elected county posts, such as treasurer and auditor, to appointive positions.

* Limit supervisors to two four-year terms.

* Make it easier for the county to contract with private firms for government services.

Here are some of the arguments on both sides of the issue:

FAVORING CHARTER

* Fixes structural problems with county government exposed by bankruptcy.

* Creates management system similar to private business, including strong chief executive with the power to hire and fire.

* Provides more oversight of county investments.

* Highly technical jobs such as treasurer would be appointive rather than elective, increasing chances the most qualified candidate is selected.

OPPOSING CHARTER