New Leaders for a New Era

Orange County has embarked on the new year with substantial turnover in county government leadership. The most visible changes have been in law enforcement, with a new sheriff and district attorney. The Board of Supervisors has a new member in Cynthia Coad, and the departure of her predecessor, William G. Steiner, has led to a new chairman, Charles V. Smith. Steve E. Lewis, the auditor-controller who stayed too long after the bankruptcy, has been succeeded with the same person brought in to supplant his internal auditing duties in 1995. The assessor who wrestled with the supervisors, Bradley L. Jacobs, has given way to his chief assistant, Webster J. Guillory.

These changes come as the 1990s draw to a close, and with them, an era rocked by the county’s 1994 bankruptcy and marked by a new population of residents. The decade also has been notable for the implementation of new standards for how county government officials will do business. The departure of Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi is especially significant in this regard, because his tenure coincided with these changes in the expectations for ethics and campaign financing.

Capizzi’s rejection by the leadership of his own party was capped on the way out the door when he was left off a list for judicial appointments. He reportedly had retained backing from some Orange County Republicans for a judgeship, but for many, his legacy of political prosecutions left a bitter taste. These included the pursuit of county officials caught up in the bankruptcy, and especially, the targeting of Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) on charges of political corruption.

But with new county leadership, a new century stretching out ahead, and the departure of the local enforcer for political prosecutions, the future is uncertain. So now the question arises: Will the tide of reform that found expression in local legislation designed to police campaigns continue in a new era? Will supervisors also remain committed to their own ethical guidelines?

Nationally, money and politics have become entwined. These trends have played out also at the local level as the suburbs expanded. During the post-World War II decades, the wheels of Orange County development were greased with campaign contributions, and there were close relationships between developers and those who could make their plans happen.

Beginning in 1978, things began to change. First came a local law requiring supervisors to abstain from voting on matters affecting major contributors. This original “tin cup” ordinance was difficult to track, and was amended in 1992 to institute a strict $1,000 contribution limit per person for each election cycle, and then it was affirmed by voters. In 1993, county employees were barred from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with them. A ban on lobbying by county employees for a year after leaving was put in place after the gift ban.

“Soft money” given to political parties rather than candidates is not at play in Orange County’s nonpartisan offices, but that doesn’t mean that politics isn’t in the picture. The political overtones of county office-holding are evident in the party concerns that arise from investigations of political campaigns. That’s where the question of what the post-Capizzi era will be like comes up.

Capizzi didn’t make friends with his political prosecutions, and whether he made mountains out of molehills can be debated in individual cases. But with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission out of county oversight, it really matters what the district attorney’s office thinks and does about monitoring local “good government” ordinances. The new district attorney, Anthony J. Rackauckas, was strongly backed by those who were disgusted with Capizzi, and has not to date sent a strong signal that he intends to vigorously enforce the local ordinances.

So the question of what the future in this area will look like is on the table. No doubt, there are mice who might like to play if the cat is inattentive. The time to reaffirm the importance of ethics in government is when there is a substantial changeover in personnel.

With so many new faces, there is an expectation and a hope that government will not return to the old ways. The bankruptcy reaffirmed that government servants needed to be overseen, and that they should be held to high standards of accountability and personal ethics. With the departure of many of the old guard, affirming those standards is vital.