Morgan Ordered to Cut Remarks About Long on Statement

Camarillo City Councilman Mike Morgan must eliminate the part of his ballot statement in which he disparaged his November election opponent, Supervisor Kathy Long, a judge ruled Friday.

Judge Henry Walsh also delayed ruling on a similar ballot language issue in statements involving a measure that would transfer $260 million in tobacco settlement funds over 25 years from the county to private hospitals.

Words such as “transfer” and “forever” are loaded and are being used by Ventura County in what is supposed to be an impartial statement to influence voters who will decide in November who gets the money, said lawyers representing Community Memorial Hospital, which is backing Measure O. Both sides say they will spend the money on health care.

William Moritz, the assistant county counsel, said the words are not loaded but merely show a difference of opinion about how the issues are seen.

All ballot statements must be in by Tuesday so they can be ready for printing by the end of the week, the county clerk’s office said.

With little comment, Walsh agreed with Long’s contention that it’s illegal to make any kind of attack against an opponent in the informational pamphlet mailed to voters.

Long said she was pleased with Walsh’s decision. “The judge did what was right.”

Morgan’s statements suggested that Long was responsible for millions of dollars in fines stemming from a Medicare billing scandal and that she had taken money from special interests. Morgan said he merely followed examples given to him by the county’s election office and thought he was within the limits of the law.

“It doesn’t hurt me,” Morgan said of the decision.

*

Long filed a challenge with the court Tuesday. Morgan tried to refile a new ballot statement Thursday with the office of the registrar of voters, but by law, candidates may not amend statements once they have been turned in. Only a judge can have a statement edited or rewritten, elections chief Bruce Bradley said.

Otherwise, “you could see what they’ve said and then change your argument,” he said.

Morgan said his statement was an attempt to illuminate a long-ignored issue. His opening paragraph--which the judge said must be cut--said a vote by Long to merge mental health departments cost the county $35 million.

Morgan also had to cut a phrase that suggested Long took special-interest money, but he is allowed to say he does not.

Long cited a study by county Auditor Tom Mahon that says it cost $1.57 million in legal services to construct and reverse the merger and in lost revenue from illegal billings charged by the Behavioral Health Department during the period that the merger was in effect.

The move violated federal organizational requirements, which mandate that the county medical center must directly supervise the doctors in the mental health unit.

The county incurred millions of dollars in federal penalties after the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into the illegal billings. Costs associated with the merger and federal penalties totaled $25.5 million, according to a March county report.

Lindsay Nielson, Long’s attorney, said the campaign trail--not the voter pamphlet--is the place for the debate. “This isn’t a political statement. It’s a ‘Who am I?’ If he took out an ad, he could do that.”

In the battle over Measure O, the fight came down to semantics. Walsh expressed doubts about some of the arguments.

“Do you think John Q. Citizen is really going to fasten onto a word like ‘transfer’ as a loaded word as he decides how to vote?” Walsh asked Jim Parrinello, Community Memorial’s attorney.

“Yes, it is loaded, because it sounds like a gift,” Parrinello replied.

Community Memorial lawyers say the analysis on the ballot doesn’t mention “health care,” and the use of the word “forever” in describing the long-term consequences of the vote is false, because the measure could be overturned by voters at any time.

Walsh called much of the debate over wording “a sort of inside the Beltway mentality” surrounding an issue that “is going to be settled on a gut level by people.”

The ballot analysis doesn’t say the money will be used for health care, Moritz said, because there is no evidence that it will.

“We believe it would be a misrepresentation to use the words ‘health care,’ ” he said. “Reasonable people disagree [on] what this is all about. We should not be putting our stamp of approval on this and say it’s for health care when they, in their papers, say it’s a claims bill.”

*

The county says the seven private hospitals and Community Memorial will use the money to pay off debt acquired by treating the indigent and uninsured and that it won’t be used for other health care programs.

Both sides have also attacked each other’s ballot arguments as inaccurate, but Walsh said he had heard enough to make a decision without listening to another round of debate. He said he would decide as soon as possible.

Michael Bakst, executive director of Community Memorial, said he can’t believe “health care” was left off the ballot summary. He said the county is spreading “disinformation” and hopes to confuse voters by playing with words.

“It’s a continuation of the county’s efforts to deprive voters of their right to vote,” Bakst said. “And now they are using propaganda.”