More Reasons Why Reforms Lost
Re “Still Waiting for Real County Reforms,” April 7:
Peter Buffa believes that county government is obsolete even though it still represents over 200,000 residents living in unincorporated areas of the county. Even though it remains the organizing committee for the Orange County Transportation [Authority], the Transportation Corridor Agency, the Air Quality Management District and the political arm of representation to the state of California and hundreds of federal agencies. Who do you think will deal with these factors and the cities if we have no county government? The Stanton City Council?
Buffa misses the point! Measures T and U were the godchildren of the Board of Supervisors and a fairly simple way to make sure that they could hedge their bets against real reform in the future. Luckily, the people got the message and these plans were defeated 2 to 1.
Originally, Supervisor [Marian] Bergeson suggested a part-time or nonexistent Board of Supervisors, that what we needed was just a unifying strong CEO, like Bill Popejoy. When that idea failed, with the likes of Stanton and Silva yelping in pain, Jan Mittermeier got the nod.
Now what? As many new committees form to seek some of the ideas overlooked in the first “Charter Committee,” the strong CEO concept is not being promulgated in the manner it was in the beginning. Should we have term limits for supervisors? Of course! Should we privatize redundant public services? Of course some! Should we elect treasurer, assessor and auditor? Absolutely! Should elected public officials be responsible, accountable and step down when they make serious mistakes? You bet! Should any bureaucrat have so much responsibility and power that elected officials are merely their pawns? Certainly not! Should we have 12 supervisors rather than five? No way!
As Buffa points out so succinctly, the County of Orange was established in 1889. The county has lasted over 107 years, while developers have prospered, real estate agents have made a bundle, industry has flourished, residents have profited from increased land values and the quality of life has hung in there. Even newspapers have made money on increased advertising.
Now is the time to simply ask one question: Are these the watchful supervisors who are up to the task of carrying on a tradition of excellence and are willing to be accountable for what they do?
RON WINSHIP
Campaign manager, No on T
Newport Beach
* Re “Meaning of Charter’s Thumping Loss Unclear,” March 28:
What is unclear? The plan to revamp county government proposed a move in the wrong direction.
Like most liberals, many conservatives and almost everyone in the public sectors, the proponents of the new charter simply do not understand. The problems are not jobs, the homeless and the economy. The problems are violent crime, taxation, inflation and too much government regulation.
The people need more control, with more restrictions on how the governing body conducts the people’s affairs.
For starters, the proposed charter threatened taxpayer protection guaranteed by Proposition 13, about the only useful piece of law that I have seen in half a century. Unfortunately, it did not go nearly far enough in reducing the powers of elected officials to extract money from taxpayers and then waste it.
I would like to see some of the following elements built into a new charter:
* Any tax increase or bond offering to require a 75% plurality.
* Any general public employee wage or pension increase to require a 75% plurality.
* Investing surplus funds in instruments with a safety of principal equivalent to that provided by U.S. government securities with maturity dates corresponding to the dates funds will be needed.
* Setting service priorities--providing for fire protection, law enforcement, street and road maintenance, and public education, in that order. All else would be limited and only after the key items are accomplished.
SIDNEY HATCHL
Santa Ana
