State Scrutiny of Sheriff’s Budget Urged

Troubled by reports of wasteful spending habits, the top legislator in the state Assembly called Monday for toughened scrutiny of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to rein in an agency that he said has been “operating in a vacuum” for too long.

“This is a conflict that requires the state to intervene,” Assembly Majority Leader Antonio R. Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) said in an interview.

In a measure introduced late Friday, Villaraigosa is proposing that the state impose rigorous new fiscal controls over the Sheriff’s Department, subjecting it to more periodic audits and requiring closer accountability to the County Board of Supervisors.

Sheriff’s officials, huddled in closed-door sessions Monday morning to discuss the proposal, quickly emerged to criticize the measure as unnecessary.

“I think we already have plenty of oversight,” said Undersheriff Jerry Harper. “We’ve had several audits done. We have one that is ongoing. We don’t need any more audits.”

Budget director Fred Ramirez said: “You get numb after awhile. It’s like, God, another one. . . . I think it’s another bureaucratic move, and I don’t know what the purpose is.”

The proposal marks the latest salvo from Sacramento in recent months against a department that was once seen as politically invulnerable.

Among the setbacks: The state’s top auditor concluded three months ago that the sheriff could save $44 million a year were it not for “gold-plated” spending, overpriced jail guards and other fiscal problems. A state panel last week refused to endorse a plan that would provide up to $137 million in state money over five years for operations at the new Twin Towers jail. And the state Department of Corrections is trying to determine whether the Sheriff’s Department overcharged the state about $12 million in medical care for inmates who were not sick.

Villaraigosa said he decided to seek greater control over the Sheriff’s Department several months ago after reading a series in The Times in November on the sheriff’s budget, detailing millions of dollars in potentially wasteful spending.

The Times’ investigation found that the department had bypassed low bids on many contracts, used millions to prop up “outdated” computers, and spent money for items such as $466 toasters, “emergency” cookies for inmates and HBO in the jails through an inmate-financed welfare fund, among other irregularities. At the same time, the department said it could not afford to open Twin Towers for more than a year and released tens of thousands of inmates early from jail.

Villaraigosa said he was troubled by these indications of “inappropriate and unwise decisions” in the sheriff’s budgeting and directed his staff to look for solutions.

He identified three top proposals for reform, incorporating them into his bill:

* Requiring the Board of Supervisors to approve all sheriff’s expenditures over $100,000.

The board now must approve spending at that threshold for some sheriff’s contracts--services and consulting, for instance--but not others. As a result, the department could, under current policy, buy a batch of new cars or helicopters without the board’s approval, but it would then have to go to the board if it wanted to enact a $100,000 contract to repair and maintain those vehicles, officials said.

* Requiring the Sheriff’s Department to justify and seek board approval for any contracts in which it wants to bypass the low bidder on the job.

The department now generally must tell county purchasing agents why it wants to bypass a low bidder without going before the Board of Supervisors, officials said. Villaraigosa said the practice troubles him. “When you’re not going to go with the low bid, you should have to explain publicly why not,” he said.

* Requiring a private audit of the department every five years.

The Sheriff’s Department had not been subjected to a full management audit in memory before The Times investigation prompted county supervisors to order a review, now being undertaken jointly by in-house auditors and a private agency.

But Villaraigosa said: ‘I’m not sure that in-house auditors are appropriate in this context. A private auditor would be the best entity to make sure that it’s a comprehensive audit.”

Board Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky, who has been the board’s most frequent critic of the Sheriff’s Department, said in an interview that he agrees with all three proposals in principle, but he is not certain that state legislators should be the ones pushing for the changes.

“I think I’d rather see [the reforms] be produced in-house. All of us would rather be masters of our own destiny than be subjected to state directives,” he said. Ideally, Yaroslavsky added, pressure from Villaraigosa would jump-start the debate at the county level, forcing supervisors to adopt tightened controls on their own.

Assemblyman Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes) said it’s too early to know how he would vote, but said he has doubts about the need to impose a “state mandate” on the sheriff.

Sheriff Sherman Block “is an elected official and a successful one. He’s been reelected several times by big margins. He has also been successful in solving problems internally within his department,” Kuykendall said.

But Villaraigosa predicted that his measure stands a strong chance of passage after it is referred to an Assembly committee next month.

He rejected the idea that the state should stay out of the affairs of a local elected official, saying it has become clear that sheriff’s officials have resisted scrutiny from the Board of Supervisors.

“I’m not a basher of the sheriff, and I am supportive of him and his leadership,” he added. “This is not about Block. Block could be here in two years or he might not be. This is about making sure that every level of government has accountability.”

Times staff writers Josh Meyer and Max Vanzi contributed to this story.