Silva’s Four-Fifths Solution

Supporters of the county’s top executive, Jan Mittermeier, can thank Supervisor Jim Silva for her decision to accept the terms of a new contract.

Not just for what Silva did--switching his vote Tuesday to something more acceptable to her--but for what he said.

Silva explained that when Mittermeier threatened to quit following a contract vote that would have substantially reduced her authority, he agreed to a compromise just to keep her with the county. He went on to praise Mittermeier for her post-bankruptcy planning and say how much the county needs her.

“My husband, [Ron,] and I talked long into the night about this decision,” Mittermeier said. “I think what Jim Silva said might have tipped the scales. It’s important to work for someone who shows confidence in you.”

Mittermeier has been working for months for a board that generally splits 3 to 2 in her favor. That’s a pretty thin endorsement margin. Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson are often opposed to her. Supervisors Charles V. Smith and William G. Steiner are strong Mittermeier allies.

That made Silva the key vote on her contract Tuesday. And when he finally voted--after a flip-flop--with the pro-Mittermeier board members, he had to take a lot of heat from Spitzer. Spitzer got so angry he sent Silva a note withdrawing his endorsement of the supervisor in his tough reelection fight against Huntington Beach Councilman Dave Sullivan.

But more important, Spitzer also indicated to the public and the media that Silva’s vote switch raised the question of Silva’s integrity.

I think it may prove to be Silva’s finest hour.

Silva was willing to compromise on something he strongly believed in--significant board oversight on department head hirings--for what he saw as the greater good. I’d say that is a vote for integrity, not a strike against it. Not all of us are willing to do that.

“I’m only one of five supervisors,” Silva said later. “I’m not going to get my way every time; none of us will. But I can live with this contract. And I did think we needed to keep Jan.”

To recap what happened Tuesday:

Silva, Spitzer and Wilson agreed by straw vote that Mittermeier’s hiring decisions, under the new contract, could be overturned by a simple board majority--a 3-2 vote. But Mittermeier sent word that she would quit under those conditions.

So Silva joined supervisors Steiner and Smith on a different contract proposal: one that would require a four-fifths board vote to overturn Mittermeier’s hiring decisions.

Actually, Mittermeier isn’t happy with that one either. She believes she needs full authority on hiring and firing of staff to do her job effectively. But Mittermeier finally agreed to accept the four-fifths proposal.

“I’m willing to at least give it a chance and see how it works out,” she said.

For his part, Silva said he’s not that unhappy with the final terms of the contract.

“I would have liked to have had a 3-2 oversight policy,” he said. “But if it meant Jan leaving, I have said all along I could live with a four-fifths ratification. I don’t see that much difference, really. It’s still board oversight, which is all I ever wanted.”

Silva was stunned that Spitzer got angry enough to send him that note withdrawing his endorsement in Silva’s campaign against Sullivan. But instead of a sharp reply, Silva simply answered by writing “OK” and signing his name.

“Some of Todd’s staff members are already working on behalf of my opponent,” Silva said. “So his endorsement didn’t mean that much.”

Spitzer had shown a similar display of temper once when Wilson took a vote Spitzer didn’t like. He threatened to withdraw his support for Wilson in his election campaign. Wilson won handily, though, so it became a moot point.

What’s much more disturbing to me is Spitzer’s attack on Silva’s integrity. That’s just farcical nonsense. Why can’t honest people just disagree without being disagreeable about it?

Spitzer said during the meeting that, when Silva had taken his side in the Tuesday morning session, it was for a “vision” for the county. Vision? To me it was more like a step backward to our pre-bankruptcy days. But when Silva’s vote switch “metamorphosized,” as Spitzer called it, suddenly this visionary Silva lacks integrity?

I don’t think too many people are going to buy into that. I thought Silva did the right thing by compromising. If Silva had refused to compromise, I might not have liked it, but I would never have seen it as a character defect.

Now it’s time to give the new contract a chance to work. Mittermeier has a new title--county executive officer instead of “chief.” But that’s still spelled CEO.

My guess is Mittermeier will stay tuned in to the board close enough that it will never have to use its new four-fifths power. I’m also convinced Mittermeier will do some fence-mending with Wilson, who is not nearly her enemy as much as Spitzer.

Should board changes ever put Spitzer in the majority, however, Mittermeier points out that “there will always be other attractive jobs out there.”

*

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