Both Sides File Challenges Over Tobacco Measure

A battle over the truthfulness of arguments that will appear on the tobacco initiative ballot this fall heated up Friday, with both sides claiming the other is misleading the public.

The ballot will contain arguments for and against Measure O, which would transfer $260 million in tobacco funds from the county to seven private hospitals. Once the arguments are formulated, there is a 10-day period during which both sides can file court challenges to the statements on the ballot.

Both sides did so Friday.

Measure O opponents said claims the private hospitals would use the money for health care programs are unfounded, notions the county hospital only treats 47% of the poor are false and statements that county supervisors are “in bed with Big Tobacco” because they hold stock in tobacco companies are “blatantly false.”

Lawyers for Community Memorial Hospital, which wrote the initiative, disputed this and filed their own petition Friday with Ventura County Superior Court.

In it, the hospital’s lawyers contended a number of statements against Measure O were false or misleading, including allegations the measure would not oversee how hospitals spend the money, that it raises barriers to smoking prevention programs, and that the money would not go toward health care programs but instead help pay off private hospitals’ bad debts.

Community Memorial also questioned why attorney Fred Woocher, who has been a consultant for the county in its fight against the tobacco initiative, represented Measure O opponents.

“He’s the lawyer the county hired to keep the initiative off the ballot,” said Mark Barnhill, a spokesman for Community Memorial.

“Now he shows up to represent the [anti-Measure O] coalition. How do we know he’s still not being paid by the county? You have a county employee filing a suit being represented by county lawyers. It’s another example of county government using its influence to fix an election.”

The petition was filed by Martina Melero, a nurse at Ventura County Medical Center and head of the local California Nurses Assn. union.

The county cannot legally do anything to sway public opinion in this election. But Community Memorial contends county officials actually pull the strings of the Coalition Against the Hospital Initiative, a group of unions, public health agencies and other groups against the measure.

Neal Andrews, a spokesman for the coalition, said he did not know Woocher had worked for the county. Woocher is taking the case for free, Andrews said. He called it “preposterous” to say this was illegal or improper.

“So if you ever worked for the county and you’re involved with us, suddenly you have a conflict of interest?” he asked. “Geez, give me a break.”

Woocher, who works for a Santa Monica law firm, could not be reached for comment.

“He’s [Woocher] private counsel and we hired him as a consultant,” said Bill Moritz, assistant county counsel.”There is no question the county hired him to challenge the initiative, but as far as I know he is not getting paid by the county for this.”

To dispel any doubts, Barnhill said, the county should release all records of financial dealings with Woocher, including any plans to use his services in the future.

Earlier this week Community Memorial asked the court to force the county to rewrite sample ballots, claiming those already drafted are inaccurate and biased.

The ballots are supposed to contain objective, unbiased explanations of the issue, but Community Memorial said fiscal impact reports and other elements were meant to scare voters into opposing the tobacco initiative.

A hearing is set in Ventura County Superior Court for 8:30 a.m. Monday to review the petitions.

The final wording of the ballot must be completed before Aug. 29.