Public Safety Ordinance Under Scrutiny

The Ventura County Grand Jury took on one of county government’s sacred cows Wednesday, questioning why the supervisors agreed last year to turn over millions in special sales tax money exclusively to law enforcement and other public safety agencies.

In an interim report, the watchdog panel suggested that county officials should take another look at the Public Safety Ordinance, which gives the Board of Supervisors no discretion over how to spend more than $30 million generated annually by the Proposition 172 half-cent sales tax.

“What is the constitutionality of the Public Safety Initiative Ordinance?” the grand jury asked in the three-page report released Wednesday.

The report also asked that County Counsel James McBride and the supervisors consider broadening the definition of “public safety” to include more agencies and questioned whether the board gave away significant budgetary power when it ceded all the money to a handful of departments.

Proposition 172, passed in 1993, dictated that a temporary half-cent sales tax imposed to help with Loma Prieta earthquake relief should be made permanent and used to pay for public safety.

But counties throughout the state have used Proposition 172 money as an excuse to divert General Fund revenue earmarked for public safety to other agencies.

Last year, the Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to close that loophole and ensure that the special revenue would go to the sheriff, district attorney, public defender, probation and fire agencies.

“More than 55,000 people wanted that [ordinance],” Assistant Dist. Atty. Kevin McGee said, referring to a petition drive started by his boss, Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, and Sheriff Larry Carpenter. The supervisors passed the ordinance before the measure appeared on the ballot.

But Supervisors Susan Lacey and Maggie Kildee complained that the ordinance unfairly stripped the board of its fiscal power and would lead to deep cuts in other county services. The grand jury’s interim report echoes many of their concerns.

This fiscal year, public safety officials expect to reap close to $31 million in Proposition 172 money. And under terms of the county ordinance, supervisors cannot cut--as other counties throughout the state do--a similar amount of money from the $148.6 million going to public safety agencies. Those counties have used the money to pay for services such as libraries, mental health care and social services.

“Other counties have used that money for other purposes,” Supervisor Frank Schillo said. “I don’t think that’s right. I think that’s making changes without the public knowing.”

Beyond the philosophical arguments, the grand jury questioned whether the supervisors could repeal the measure by a simple vote.

The district attorney’s office contends that the ordinance can only be repealed by a vote of the people.

But County Counsel James McBride sees things differently. Future boards could, in fact, repeal the ordinance with three votes.

“But it really hasn’t been an issue,” McBride said. “Nobody is looking to repeal it.”

Two supporters, Supervisors Schillo and John Flynn, also conceded that a board majority could repeal the ordinance. But like McBride, the two agreed that a stance to repeal the ordinance would be political suicide.

“The people voted to put more money with public safety, and that’s what we did by passing the ordinance,” Flynn said. “The voters are my boss. This is what the people want.”