Why Did It Take a Crisis to Point Out Long-Term Problems?

While county leaders reel from the scathing resignation letter from Chief Administrative Officer David L. Baker and cover their collective behinds, I suggest that they reread his thoughtful comments and use them as a wake-up call. His observations are, for the most part, correct and should be heeded.

I ran for county auditor-controller in 1997 but was unsuccessful in my attempt to unseat incumbent Tom Mahon. Several of the concerns raised in Baker’s letter were also raised by my campaign.

Mahon is not a certified public accountant and he is not trained as an auditor. He is not a watchdog or advocate for taxpayers. His audits are mostly transactional and seldom challenge the operational issues of why and how services are provided.

The budget process is a farce. It includes hundreds of “unfilled” positions even though there is no intention of filling them. It includes millions of dollars in unexplained reserves and miscellaneous expense categories used to obscure the real cost of government.

In most years, budgeted revenues fall short of projections and “cuts” are ordered. Voters are mislead into thinking that government is tightening its belt. These cuts are painlessly accomplished by eliminating unfilled positions or reducing unspecified reserves. This gamesmanship has been going on for years. No wonder that it lacks credibility.

Baker points out that the “auditor’s office plays too much of a policy role” and filters too much information needed by the CAO and Board of Supervisors. I agree and believe that the auditor-controller should challenge this defective methodology. He should work toward compiling clear and understandable budgets so that supervisors can decide policy. Mahon, as the taxpayers’ advocate, should lead the charge for spending discipline but he instead has participated in the same budget games with his department budget.

Baker is right about the denial and lack of financial analysis and planning that goes into capital projects. Mahon chairs the finance committee that reviews these projects and seldom provides supervisors with real financial analysis. As Baker noted, the Juvenile Justice Complex is one example. Had he been around a few years ago, he would have also pointed at Todd Road Jail, built with grants and matching funds without regard to how the county could afford to operate it. Had Proposition 172 not been approved, the Todd Road facility could be sitting vacant or causing a serious drain on other budgets.

When supervisors, on a 3-2 vote, approved the ill-fated mental health merger that has cost the county $15 million in penalties, Mahon said nothing. Chief Administrative Officer Lin Koester and the consultants hired to analyze the merger both strongly objected to the hasty decision but Mahon was unprepared to provide guidance on behalf of the taxpayers and voters he is supposed to represent.

*

Mahon now claims there is a “cash flow problem,” which is not a big surprise considering the $15-million charge. In fact, he says that the county could have trouble making payroll. Why did it take Baker’s letter to get Mahon to go public with this? When did he learn of this “alarming, irresponsible situation”? He failed to disclose it in his official tax anticipation borrowing statements.

Mahon and other Ventura County department heads are paid about $120,000 to $150,000 a year, plus benefits and golden handshake retirements. They wanted to be paid like industry leaders. If the vice president / finance of a large company had failed so miserably, he would be looking for a new job.

It is sad that supervisors and the public don’t hold these people to a higher standard. Incumbency and voter apathy continue to reelect Mahon.

It is also sad that we voters don’t hold the supervisors to a higher standard. They, with the possible exception of Judy Mikels and Frank Schillo, have failed miserably to oversee the financial and managerial affairs of the county.