Supervisor Wants Colleagues to Discipline County’s CEO

A simmering conflict between County Chief Executive Jan Mittermeier and Supervisor Todd Spitzer erupted publicly Wednesday, with the supervisor calling on colleagues to discipline the CEO and reduce her powers.

The clash followed a tense Tuesday night Board of Supervisors meeting at which Spitzer grilled Mittermeier, Sheriff Brad Gates and other top officials about shoddy work performed by a county-administered housing rehabilitation program.

Spitzer then accused the CEO of deceiving the board about her knowledge of problems with the program.

“She flat out lied to the board. It was a flat-out, baldfaced lie,” the supervisor said Wednesday. “This incident has made it abundantly clear to me that the Board of Supervisors is not in charge of this county. . . . It’s proof the CEO is out of control.”

Other supervisors promptly came to Mittermeier’s defense, praising her handling of the problems in the housing rehabilitation program and accusing Spitzer of grandstanding.

“He’s so far out in left field he’s out of the park,” Supervisor Charles V. Smith said. “I think he’s doing this for political reasons.”

Smith was particularly critical of Spitzer’s aggressive questioning of Mittermeier, Gates and others Tuesday night.

At one point, an exasperated Board Chairman William G. Steiner interrupted the hearing to tell Spitzer, a former prosecutor: “Remember, Mr. Spitzer, this is the not the O.J. trial.”

The clash highlights the sensitive nature of the relationship between the supervisors and their chief executive, who in the wake of the county bankruptcy was given substantially greater powers than her predecessors to run the county bureaucracy.

On Wednesday, Spitzer said the board should amend the ordinance giving Mittermeier sole power to hire and fire county managers, and oblige her to share that authority with the supervisors in matters affecting top management.

“It’s ridiculous that I’m powerless to do anything about a manager,” he said. “The whole power structure is out of whack.”

Two other supervisors agreed Wednesday that the board should have a larger role on some personnel decisions, although they were more circumspect about curtailing the CEO’s authority. Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson said Mittermeier should consult with the board before hiring or firing top managers, while Supervisor Jim Silva said he has long believed that the board should “ratify” the CEO’s actions affecting top management.

But both Wilson and Silva expressed support for Mittermeier. “I believe she has always kept the board informed in the two years I’ve been here,” Silva said.

The controversy that triggered Spitzer’s outburst involves a program run by the county’s Housing and Redevelopment Department to rehabilitate low-income housing. Residents accused contractors of doing shoddy work, such as incorrectly installing water heaters and electrical wiring.

Spitzer toured some of the homes earlier this month and pressed county officials to make repairs. He also asked that Mittermeier investigate why a report detailing the problems and conducted last August was not given to supervisors until earlier this month.

At the board meeting Tuesday night, Spitzer spent nearly an hour questioning Mittermeier and others about the problem, which prompted an ongoing investigation by the Sheriff’s Department into possible criminal wrongdoing.

Spitzer criticized Mittermeier for failing to disclose a confidential letter from Gates last year saying the county faced liability problems because of poor work performed by contractors. He also said Mittermeier “lied” in telling supervisors she wasn’t aware of possible liabilities related to the rehabilitation program.

“When the county has liability issues, she has an obligation to inform the board,” Spitzer said. “She insulated the board from receiving critical information. She kept information from us.”

Spitzer proposed Tuesday night that the board request a federal investigation into the matter, but none of the other supervisors would support the motion.

He said he might consider firing Mittermeier but will focus on some type of disciplinary action instead. “I need to achieve consensus among the board members,” he said.

County spokeswoman Diane Thomas said Mittermeier “does not respond to the supervisors through the media” and thus would have no comment on Spitzer’s allegations.

“She believes that it would be totally inappropriate to share the contents or existence of such a confidential memo without direction from the district attorney or sheriff,” Thomas added. “To do so could interfere with an ongoing investigation.”

The four other supervisors said they didn’t believe that Mittermeier tried to deceive them and don’t see a need for discipline.

Steiner expressed hope that top officials can work out their differences on the issue so they can effectively deal with other pressing county business. “We can disagree on an issue without personalizing it,” he said.

Tuesday’s boardroom fireworks were unusual for a board that in years past has been criticized for handling disagreements behind closed doors instead of at public meetings.

Armed with memos and a chronology, Spitzer peppered officials with pointed questions about the rehabilitation program.

In a few cases, a few barbed remarks were directed his way. The sheriff at one point prefaced a statement by saying: “Now that Mr. Spitzer has grabbed a headline for tomorrow morning. . . . “

Gates on Wednesday described Spitzer’s questioning as “the most embarrassing moment [in terms of] how the county conducts business in my 22 years of service as sheriff.”

“It seems that the supervisor has forgotten his role,” Gates added. “He’s not a prosecutor anymore. He’s an official setting public policy. He should stick to that.”

Spitzer made no apologies for his demeanor.

“I recognize that when you stand up for what you believe in, on occasion, you upset the status quo,” he said. “I was elected with a mandate to change county government. I’m going to keep my commitments to the people.”

Residents who received shoddy repairs as part of the rehabilitation program praised Spitzer for touring their homes and demanding that the county make repairs.

Community activists also expressed support for Spitzer’s public airing of the controversy and for attempting to hold the CEO and other officials accountable for their actions.

“To see a window opened and air blow through this county was something beautiful to behold,” said Costa Mesa activist Janet Remington, who attended the meeting.

Added Bill Ward, with the Committees of Correspondence anti-tax group: “We need to see more of this. We elected the supervisors to run the county, not the CEO. They have to take the power back.”