3 Compete in the 5th Supervisorial District

Three of the five seats on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors will be on the March 7 ballot. The Times Ventura County Edition editorial board has interviewed all of the candidates and will publish excerpts from those interviews each Sunday until election day.

In the 5th District, six-term incumbent John K. Flynn is being challenged by Oxnard Elementary School District Trustee Francisco Dominguez and by Arlene Fraser, the Port Hueneme Chamber of Commerce executive director.

The largely Latino 5th District stretches from Silver Strand, Hollywood Beach and Hollywood by the Sea to Oxnard, El Rio, Nyeland Acres, the Del Norte area and the Oxnard Plain.

Fraser, a community activist, is waging her third challenge against Flynn. Dominguez, executive director of a community advocacy group, is seeking to become the first Latino in recent history to win a seat on the county board. In challenging Flynn, he takes on an incumbent long popular with Latino voters.

Francisco Dominguez decided only in December that the time was right for a Latino candidate to challenge John Flynn.

Dominguez, 38, an Oxnard Elementary School District trustee, said recent events, including revelations about the county’s financial and organizational problems, indicate it’s time for change. He has highlighted his own record of leadership and fiscal responsibility with the school board and has said he helped bring millions of dollars to the Latino advocacy group El Concilio del Condado de Ventura, of which he is executive director.

*

Question: Why did you decide to get into this race? What would you bring to the board?

Answer: Simply put, new leadership. There needs to be a much better, more cohesive relationship among the board members.

As a school board member, one of the things I pride myself on is trying to build consensus. Consensus means that the end product is not necessarily going to be what you’re advocating or I’m advocating but something in the middle, something that’s totally different. So it means giving up on some of the things you would like to see happen--but in the end, serving the best interests of the whole.

That’s what I would like to do as a supervisor. I think there’s a lack of consensus-building among the board [members]. I think I have the leadership skills and ability to provide that.

Second, there needs to be accountability. Measurements for government are difficult to establish, but they need to be set in place. When our school board hired Richard Duarte as superintendent, we established measures of performance in his contract. The prior superintendent’s contract gave him whatever annual review was negotiated with the bargaining unit. When I got on the board I said, “This is wrong. How are we going to hold the superintendent accountable? We redid the board policy, put measurements in the contract, things that we would like to see accomplished. Six months into the year we review them. Those are the kind of things you can put in place in government that can make individuals accountable.

At the county, the structure is set up so that the chief administrative officer doesn’t have the authority to really monitor the progress in the departments. We need to establish some real authority in that position, perhaps changing it to a chief executive officer position that can, in turn, make the department heads more accountable. That has to happen.

The final element, for me, is economic development--in particular for the district. For example, Channel Islands Harbor is a tremendous resource but it is extremely underutilized. Here’s an opportunity for the county to really revitalize the harbor, to provide economic development opportunities that could be beneficial to both the county and the city. We need to multiply that throughout the county. Economic development has to be approached as a regional issue.

*

Q: What steps would you take to make the board more effective?

A: The current “corporate culture” of the board allows behavior that is inappropriate. When the department heads have a specific project that they want to move forward, they find a supervisor who will take this as their cause. That has to stop, because it doesn’t do well for the institution as a whole.

There are 16 schools in the Oxnard school district. If every single principal came to me as a board member and said, “I need this, I need that,” we’d be bankrupt from trying to provide for all those needs. It’s the board culture that has to make the change to say that that kind of behavior is no longer going to be tolerated or accepted.

A more sensitive topic is what to do with Proposition 172 [the half-cent sales tax for public safety]. I believe that the ordinance that the county established really is not flexible in terms of looking at the broad picture. The ordinance was a framework of how the money should be spent. What has to happen is annually to set up a five-year plan, allocate to the needs based on that plan, and make adjustments accordingly. Mandating where it’s going to go every single year hinders the organization as a whole. Structurally, that is an item that has to be considered and has to be put back on the table.

*

Q: Should county department heads such as the auditor-controller continue to be elected?

A: I think it would better serve the government if they were not elected but appointed, because then you can really establish some direct lines of accountability. Bringing them under the direction of the CEO is the way to go.

*

Q: Where do you stand on a regional airport for Ventura County?

A: The community needs to have one. The issue is where to locate it. I don’t have that answer at this point.

*

Q: How important to your campaign is John Flynn’s vote on the mental health merger?

A: I think that’s just one issue that’s out there. The bigger issue is how Mr. Flynn has interacted with other individuals within the community, people that he would say he works with. He prides himself on saying that he’s made more people upset, or had to apologize to more people, than he can think of. It puzzles me why someone would pride himself on doing that.

I don’t think there’s a desire on his part to really reach out and bring people in, in terms of building consensus. For me it boils down to new leadership, style, the difference in that.

*

Q: How important is it for Ventura County to have a Latino supervisor? Are you disappointed that you haven’t seen a swing of Latino leadership?

A: I think it’s important to elect an individual who can represent the community as a whole. If that individual is not Latino but can meet those needs, then I think that would serve this community well.

So when your reporter asked me, “Is it time for a Latino to be on the board”--and he asked me that four or five times--I didn’t want to answer that question because I wasn’t saying it was time for that, but that it is time for new leadership.

I am Latino. I can’t hide that. I work for an agency that is an advocate for Latino issues. I’ve been involved in a number of other things related to Latino politics. That’s who I am. But the message that I preach, more than anything else, has always been civic empowerment, civic participation--in whatever form that may be for Latinos and non-Latinos--because that is the best way to make change in your community.

The situation with not having the Latino community [get behind my campaign], on things I get involved with, even with El Concilio--our friends to the left think I am too conservative and our friends to the right think I’m too liberal. I sit right in the middle most of the time! But . . . when something is wrong, you have to stand up and say something is wrong. That’s not being liberal; that’s saying there’s an injustice happening here.

*

Q: You seem to be saying, in a very genteel way, that you’re running against Flynn more for being arrogant, abusive, mistreating people, than for any specific vote. Is that the right understanding?

A: I think that’s the right understanding. I could point to other votes that I’ve seen him make and say, “This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.” He’s in the comfortable position now that he gets to become the swing vote on many issues so that creates a little more power for him. But is that always in the best interest of the community? I don’t think so.

I’m trying not to be negative. Mr. Flynn’s done a great job in terms of 22 years of service. I think the message there is, “Thank you very much for what you’ve done.”

*

Q: To knock over an incumbent don’t you have to focus on negative issues?

A: I think the political wisdom would say that’s the right way to do it. But in the end I don’t think that serves the better of the whole. That’s not the direction I want to go, that’s not what I want to be.

The more I talk to voters, two messages come out very clear. One is, “It’s time for change.” The second is, “Has the county cleaned up its mess yet? Wasn’t Mr. Flynn involved in that?”

Even though the latest report says [the county’s financial problems] are going to be OK for this year, the fiasco of the merger, the paying of the penalties, the fraudulent billing, that issue is still there. There’s still the culture, the environment that exists within the county structure. I think that’s resonated in people’s minds, and it’s staying there.

Arlene Fraser

Activist Arlene Fraser, 53, a Silver Strand resident and executive director of the Port Hueneme Chamber of Commerce, has lost to John Flynn twice and tried unsuccessfully for Oxnard Harbor District in 1996 and 1998. She holds a bachelor’s degree in special education.

After moving to Ventura County in 1979, Fraser worked for the county as a microfilm technician and as an engineering technician in flood control in the Public Works Agency. She served on the county grand jury in 1993 and has been an active volunteer and fund-raiser.

*

Question: Tell us why you are running and what you would bring to the board.

Answer: I first ran for the Board of Supervisors in 1992. Back then I was aware that no one else would be willing to run against John Flynn. He had always been on the ballot unopposed, and I thought that was not in the best interest of the county. I’ve heard people complaining that no one was willing to step forward. Then I did it again in ‘96, and this time my commitment is even stronger, knowing that he’s not going to retire.

With my background as a former county employee, I’m still involved with the business community and the schools. I was a grand jury member in 1993-94, and my sphere of contacts has really expanded from 1992 until now. I was determined not to drop out of the race, especially with all the issues raised by [short-term Chief Administrative Officer] David Baker and with the interim CAO and the changes in government--several people in key positions are retiring, such as [Public Works Director] Art Goulet. I feel that with my background and determination to look at things from a financial and organization-management standpoint, I can bring some new ideas and new ways of doing things with an open mind, teamwork concept. I think I am more open to working together, seeking solutions and trying something new.

*

Q: What do you think of David L. Baker’s analysis of county government and what steps would you take to follow through?

A: I strongly feel that he was very brave in revealing a lot of things in a short time of being at the County Government Center. I would look at the way management is handled and look more at a chief executive officer and look at the way the budget is run. I believe we need to look at, besides annual budgeting, at three- and five-year, more of a long-term overall picture. I would implement many of Baker’s recommendations, and I’m really glad that the county had the foresight to hire someone right now to be an interim person with strong experience at bringing everything together.

*

Q: What would you do to get rid of the crisis mentality that seems to pervade the county?

A: I think the key is having leadership that is able to communicate that whoever is in charge takes the responsibility of doing problem-solving ahead of time, and not hide things and cover things up. One example: In the budget process, whenever departments have unfilled vacancies, that’s still part of their budget, and there’s a lot of extra help, retirees coming back and filling extra help positions. It’s like getting a double paycheck. That type of practice should not continue.

*

Q: The county has five elected supervisors plus six elected department heads. Should that be looked at? In particular, should auditor-controller be an elected position?

A: I think it would be in the best interest of the whole administration for the auditor to not be an elected position because it seems like all the elected officials have certain restrictions because they are always running for reelection. I believe the current auditor would be stronger and doing more audits if he were appointed rather than elected.

*

Q: What’s the best use for Oxnard and Camarillo airports, and would you favor commercial air traffic at Point Mugu?

A: Bringing commercial flights to Point Mugu would require a lot of working with the Navy, because it seems like military operations have expanded there. At this time I really would not favor commercializing Point Mugu.

As for Camarillo and Oxnard airports, I really was hoping that Oxnard could maintain its status as a local airport--I use it quite often. But as you look at it and see all the homes, commercial businesses and shopping, it looks like it’s encroaching into what was supposed to be the red-line zone. It looks like there are plans to eliminate that airport. As a Chamber of Commerce executive and being in the community, I get a lot of calls asking what types of transportation we have coming in. A lot of businesses deal with local businesses in Ventura County and transportation is a major factor. In this global economy, we can’t think small. I think the airport is very important.

We need to do something to keep airports in Ventura County. Otherwise we’re going to be isolated.

*

Q: Oxnard in particular has spent millions in disputes with Ventura and Camarillo over shopping malls. How would you as a member of the Board of Supervisors work to turn this sort of competition in a more positive direction?

A: Business-wise, competition is good. It’s just that the cities need to make sure they look at the entire market area and create something unique so that people will want to shop in their city. As a county official, I would work with the state to try to get more sales tax money coming into the county. The county should not get involved with a lot of local issues.

*

Q: Now that voters have passed Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) measures, what comes next in terms of land use planning and protecting agriculture?

A: I believe Ventura County depends on agriculture. It’s a major part of the economy in this area. As long as the farmers are willing to continue producing, I strongly believe that we need to have a balance and create agricultural areas to keep it going. I grew up on a pineapple farm and understand what happens to families and kids on a farm.

The cities need to really look at what they are doing when they start giving away land, especially in Oxnard with all these developments. There seems to be no pattern of moving forward in a united way; it’s just these developer kind of influences, several people behind the scenes, and then it’s there. It doesn’t all work together.

*

Q: Do you believe the board should take another look at the ordinance that allocates Proposition 172 funds?

A: Yes, I believe it’s time to take a look at it, look at the priorities and create some changes to make it fair and create a better financial picture for the entire county. I believe that it is important to elect a person who is willing to stand up and represent people--and I think I’m proving that I’m that kind of person by running in this race, challenging someone other elected officials are not willing to challenge. I feel that I have the character to stand up and be heard, to make a difference.

John Flynn

John Flynn has presided over the 5th District for more than 20 years, a tenure during which no candidate has come close to ousting him.

The 67-year-old Oxnard resident’s hands-on approach has won him a solid block of supporters, including among Latinos, who make up more than half the voting-age residents of his district.

*

Question: You have some challengers this time. Why should the voters stick with you?

Answer: This is my 24th year and I think I have learned a lot. I have a lot of good experience. I’ve been a leader on certain issues. One of the first was making the motion to build a new county center. At the time the county government was spread all over the place.

I’ve been a leader in water, and we probably have the best-managed water system of any county in Southern California. And that takes a lot of work, bringing the farmers and the cities together into a good water policy.

The first major issue with water for me was to take on the seawater intrusion problem. The Oxnard Aquifer had been over-pumped since the early ‘40s, to the point where the seawater had intruded up to Channel Islands Boulevard. The seawater was moving north, toward where the aquifer system intermingles. So our whole water supply was in jeopardy.

It took a big selling job to convince the people that we had a problem. I went out and met with farmers and big city people and demonstrated the problem. And out of that we got a successful project that included building the Freeman Diversion, which takes water from the Santa Clara River and puts it into the Oxnard Aquifer. So seawater intrusion is being abated. That took 10 years.

Another part of why I think I should be reelected is that I’ve got the experience to probe the budget better than most people. Budgets are made up of lots of assumptions. We really don’t know how much money is going to come from the state. But the assumptions are debated and debated and debated. And I know enough about the issues to be part of the debate.

I haven’t always been perfect. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve admitted the mistakes. My votes are usually based, at least 95% of the time, on what I feel is right for the people, and not politically based votes to satisfy this person or that person. I admit I’ve made a few on those occasions.

*

Q: What’s your position on whether department heads, specifically the auditor-controller, should be elected?

A: I think that it’s good to have them elected and individually responsible to the people. Which they are. I know David Baker pointed that out in his list of problems. But I think he exaggerated the issue. I think it’s good to have an elected assessor who is responsible to the people and not to the county determining what property values will be because [otherwise he or she] could be accused of erring on the side of the county rather than on the side of the taxpayer.

*

Q: How do you feel today about your vote in favor of the mental health merger?

A: After the consequences, which I didn’t know were going to happen, I would have voted no. My vote was different, motivated differently than Supervisors [Kathy] Long and [Susan] Lacey. They were kind of in on the Steve Kaplan, Randy Feltman and Kevin DeWitt triumvirate. I wasn’t in on that.

My experience came from putting together the CalWorks welfare reform program. [In that effort,] I started meeting with the various agencies, with the business community also involved but with the district attorney or his representatives, with social workers, nurses, mental health workers, [welfare] workers, food stamp people--all the people who have anything to do with this population. My experience in sitting around the table with them for five years, was that they did not know where each other was going. They never communicated to each other.

Therefore I concluded, for myself, when the issue came up, if we have this kind of dysfunctional service being rendered to people, I would like to see Behavioral Health come together with Human Services, which it had more of a relationship with than it did with the health department. And that was the motivation for my vote.

I did not know much about the personality conflicts. Maybe I should have but I didn’t, honestly. And I did not know, and I admit I should have, that there was such a dispute between the psychologists and the psychiatrists. That’s out of ignorance on my part, I admit that.

I visited one of the teams prior to the merger, to observe, and I thought it looked pretty good. They were talking about individuals, getting feedback from social workers to the doctors. [Such as] “Dr. Lance, this kind of medication is having this kind of an effect.” I thought it was a fairly good system. But the doctors didn’t feel like they were playing a significant role. They thought they should be directing this team rather than a social worker. Therefore when the merger came along, they said, “Hey, we’re gonna be pushed out completely,” hence the whistle-blower [reported questionable billing practices to investigators]. I wish the whistle-blower had come and talked to me or others first.

*

Q: What was going on in your mind when the CAO warned against the merger?

A: I began to catch wind of the personality conflict between Randy Feltman, Steve Kaplan and Pierre Durand. So I thought, well maybe [then-CAO] Lin Koester, whom I respect, maybe he’s leaning on Pierre’s side too much. I did put trust in Susan Lacey. She has been an advocate for the mentally ill. She did work with [state Sen.] Cathie Wright in putting together the Systems of Care and maybe I lean on her too much. I think I felt that she knew maybe more than she really did know.

*

Q: How do you grade yourself and the supervisors on how you’ve responded to this situation?

A: I immediately and publicly said, “We made a mistake.” We knew it but some of the people didn’t say that. I said, “What can we do to overcome the mistake?” I became thoroughly enmeshed in our billing system so I could learn more about it. I met with the teams. I went up to the Systems of Care people in Sacramento. After the de-merger, we hired David Gudeman, the only psychiatrist mental health director in the state. I became fully convinced after studying that part of the issue more that we’re on the right track.

We got that money flowing again. The one issue we have left is with Medicare. Medicare contributes approximately 20% of the total mental health budget. The outstanding issue now, which I think we’re getting over, is whether the clinics should be free-standing clinics or hospital based clinics.

*

Q: Regarding the merger vote, on a scale of one to 10--one being mild regret, 10 being genuine remorse or sorrow--where would you put yourself?

A: I will answer your question, but with a qualification. The merger did not cause the whistle-blower. The merger simply caused a whole bunch of explosions, which maybe it’s good that they happened sooner than later. But I would put [my level of regret] at about an eight or a nine.

*

Q: Some of the things David Baker pointed out were organizational or systemic, such as CEO versus CAO. Others were more cultural, such as the habit of supervisors to go their own way, department heads to appeal directly to individual supervisors. What steps need to be taken to address those concerns?

A: Number one, I’d like to see the board forget about us rotating [the chairmanship] each year. And to have a debate on who should be chair and pick a stronger chair.

Number two, I think I would stay with a CAO but would give the CAO--I wouldn’t allow end runs by department heads. For example, we have a freeze going on now. The CAO will determine whether an emergency [requires any department head to] fill a position. And if we keep that up, which I think we will, I know we will, we’ll end up looking fairly good, just on that one issue.

I think the CAO needs stronger budget people. [Budget Director] Bert Bigler is more a process person rather than a good budget analyst. I think CAO needs a budget analyst. They depend too much on the auditor-controller.

I’d rather see the auditor-controller be independent as opposed to more or less running the show right now as far as the budget is concerned.