Cutbacks Shortsighted, Dangerous

“Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be first.”

This observation by John Jay in “The Federalist” is as true today as when written more than 200 years ago. At a time when the fear of random violence invades our homes, schools and businesses, public safety is unquestionably government’s first responsibility. Protecting the public from the ravages of crime requires more than tough penalties and improved criminal procedures--it demands resources for police officers and prosecutors.

In its recent first editorial effort, The Times suggested a reexamination of the local public safety ordinance. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the ordinance, funding for law enforcement is by no means a certainty. This year, law enforcement suffered a $1-million budget cut. The county is now considering further indirect cuts, including the imposition of a five- to eight-day salary-saving employee furlough. I believe such direct and indirect cuts are harmful to public safety. Furloughs are particularly destructive; they not only arbitrarily reduce safety services, they also demoralize dedicated peace officers, prosecutors and support staff.

Here in Ventura County, we enjoy one of the lowest metropolitan crime rates in the nation, due in large part to this community’s long-standing commitment to make public safety its top priority. This commitment is evident in our successful Neighborhood Watch programs, citizen academies and community councils. The public also justifiably expects responsive enforcement from its police departments and appropriate charging and sentencing practices by prosecutors that are never unduly lenient. To meet this expectation, elected officials must make tough budget decisions. This process often produces tension between law enforcement agencies and non-public-safety departments.

The state’s decision four years ago to shift $2.3 billion in annual property tax revenues away from local government to the state budget further escalated these conflicts. To address the resulting shortfall, law enforcement urged the governor and Legislature, and ultimately the electorate, to approve a ballot measure (Proposition 172) that provided a half-cent sales tax as a dedicated source of funding for local law enforcement. This initiative also amended our state Constitution to expressly provide that “protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government.”

Unfortunately, many counties circumvented the electorate’s clear mandate and used the revenues for non-public-safety purposes. To prevent such an occurrence in Ventura County, police and prosecutors pursued a local ordinance to guarantee minimum law enforcement funding levels that included Proposition 172 revenues. After the necessary signatures were gathered to place the measure on the ballot, the Board of Supervisors, thankfully, approved the ordinance without the need for a special election.

Now, some critics want to rethink this decision, mistakenly contending that these laws adversely impact non-public-safety departments. Nothing could be further from the truth. The additional revenue generated by the half-cent sales tax has served, in effect, as a safety net for non-public-safety departments that otherwise would have experienced even greater budget cuts. Since its enactment in 1993, Proposition 172 has generated $114 million for the benefit of public safety in this county. As a result, county General Fund dollars that would have been allocated to law enforcement were freed for non-public-safety departments.

*

Other policymakers, erroneously buoyed by recent reports concerning crime statistics, wish to return to failed rehabilitation policies of the past. They contend that public safety funds must be utilized for rehabilitation and education programs to prevent crime rather than focusing principally on punishment. While both prevention and rehabilitation programs must be part of any comprehensive effort to combat crime, the public should not be misled into believing such programs promise a solution to crime. Research studies suggest that the investment of scarce resources in such programs has little tangible impact on crime.

Nor should the public be lulled into complacency as a result of those crime statistics. The recent slayings of bank teller Monica Leech at her place of business, Jake Bush in his home and Mildred Wilson in a shopping center parking lot have understandably shaken our community’s sense of safety and security. It is particularly disturbing that all three of these slayings occurred in places where people ordinarily feel safe. Moreover, declines in crime are no doubt linked to incarceration. Simply stated, when criminals are incarcerated, they are unable to commit more crimes. We must remain vigilant. James Allen Fox, a criminologist and professor, recently stated, “We are in the eye of the crime hurricane. People are feeling good about crime now, but we have reason to be concerned about the future.”

Today in Ventura County, adequate public safety funding remains vitally important. Over the last year we have experienced an extraordinary increase in especially heinous murder cases. While Ventura County’s crime rate continues to be envied by other metropolitan communities, these cases have regrettably demonstrated that we are not immune to random violence. This circumstance, when combined with the significant volume of domestic-violence cases and the impact of the “three strikes” law, will inevitably place extraordinary demands upon investigative and prosecutor resources. In pursuing such cases, law enforcement cannot and will not forget its clear responsibility to continue protecting the public against less serious but clearly important “quality of life” crimes, like graffiti vandalism and theft.

To help us do so, our elected officials and civic leaders must continue to make public safety a priority. The public rightfully expects and deserves nothing less.