In This Case, the Majority of Supervisors Didn’t Rule

A quick civics quiz for you: If one member of the Board of Supervisors votes “no” and all the other votes are “yes,” which side wins?

I’ll confess, I would have flunked this one. The answer is: Sometimes the lone “no” vote can get his or her way.

It happened this week, and it’s left the county staff seething that five months of work--and maybe millions in revenue--could be wiped out because of it.

Due to rare circumstances, a major contract planned in the county takeover of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station was nixed Tuesday night by the Board of Supervisors, despite a 2-1 vote supporting it. But three votes--a majority of the five-member board--were required for approval.

I need to make clear that I’m not blaming the “no” voter, in this case Supervisor Todd Spitzer. He saw a loophole in the system and he took advantage of it. Any one of us might have done the same thing.

After being on the low end of a good many 3-2 votes, Spitzer must have relished finally being in the driver’s seat. Here’s what happened:

The supervisors had agreed to hire Arizona-based Cabaco Inc. to oversee the transition of the El Toro base from military to county ownership next summer. Until the base is converted to an airport (or some other permanent use), the county plans to lease out its golf course, horse stables and some of its office space to generate needed revenue. It also needs a good inventory of what’s there.

Chief Executive Office Jan Mittermeier’s staff and the supervisors were impressed with Cabaco’s presentation. A bid by Boeing Co. was a far distant second.

But before the board could vote on a contract, Cabaco dropped its designated manager, George Martin. He was replaced by Col. Jim Ritchie. Ritchie happens to be the Marines’ current transition manager for the El Toro and Tustin Marine facilities.

Though Mittermeier’s staff was impressed with Martin, they were ecstatic about Ritchie. A perfect choice, they thought, because he knows the base so well. Supervisors James Silva and William Steiner agreed.

Not so Supervisor Spitzer.

He sees Ritchie as having a conflict of interest. But that isn’t Spitzer’s main complaint. He’s mainly upset because he thinks Mittermeier’s staff didn’t follow correct selection procedures, mistakes that would wind up costing the county federal grant dollars. (For the record, the head of the county’s base conversion team, Gary Simon, sharply told Spitzer he was wrong.)

Spitzer is an opponent of a new airport at El Toro. And anybody following county government knows that Spitzer is unhappy with Mittermeier. He blames her for just about every pothole in the county.

When Mittermeier asked him to clarify why he was objecting, Spitzer snapped, “You can listen to the tape,” referring to the audiotape made of each board meeting. Good manners are not always his strong suit.

Maybe Spitzer is right. But Spitzer kept using the word “glitch” to describe the county staff’s actions. Here’s the “glitch” I don’t like: Without a single vote to back his position, Spitzer managed to kill the whole deal. Here’s why:

Silva and Steiner voted “yes” on Cabaco. But supervisors Tom Wilson and Charles V. Smith were blocked from voting. Both receive pension checks from Boeing, a minor player in the drama, which prohibited them from voting.

Smith is pro-airport, so you can figure he would have sided with the majority for the legally required third vote. Without it, the county staff must start over with a new bidding selection process.

A frustrated Simon said this will keep the county from being ready to take over the base as scheduled in July 1999. He also said that delay would cost the county “millions” in revenue. (Mittermeier said Wednesday that her staff is evaluating ways to still try to meet the deadline, but that it will be costly.)

I was left wondering where we’d be if all five on the board were getting Boeing pension checks. How can you operate a government?

To me, there’s a foul-up somewhere. I can see requiring three votes if two supervisors don’t show up because the meeting falls on their bridge night. But Smith and Wilson were present and accounted for.

According to the county counsel’s office, it is rare for two board members to share the same conflict. But it happens on occasion, said Assistant County Counsel James F. Meade. One example was when Steiner and former Supervisor Roger Stanton did not vote on whether the county should pay their legal fees during the bankruptcy. (Fortunately for them, the other three voted “yes.”)

There are even rare instances in which a unanimous vote is required, Meade said, such as when the county wants to buy or abandon park property. And there are four-fifths vote requirements, like when the county wants to hire someone to collect revenue it’s owed.

Regarding most issues, like the Cabaco vote, Meade said, “The Legislature had to decide between representative government and conflicts of interest, and felt that three votes was fair.”

Silva said later that it was frustrating, “but there’s not a darned thing you can do about it. Todd doesn’t want an airport and he’ll do anything he can to stop it.”

Many people I know love Spitzer because he has no fear of making enemies with his probing inquiries. He’s also not afraid to take a position that’s unpopular.

My guess is that in this instance, even if correct, Spitzer re-created the Rockies to make a molehill of a point. I would have been more comfortable if his position had been a majority decision.

*

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling the Times Orange County Edition at (714) 966-7823 or by fax to (714) 966-7711, or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com.