Vacancy Measure OKd for Ballot

After fighting off a last-ditch attempt to sink his county charter proposal by overloading it with unwanted amendments, Supervisor Todd Spitzer won enough votes Tuesday to put an initiative on the March ballot that would let Orange County voters--rather than the governor--decide who should fill vacancies on the board.

“I’m pleased that the charter will be before voters as a simple issue to just fill board vacancies,” Spitzer said.

Spitzer, who is running for an Assembly seat, wants to have district voters elect their representative should he win, rather than allow Democratic Gov. Gray Davis to appoint someone, possibly a Democrat. Spitzer is a Republican, as are the other four board members, though the job of supervisor is nonpartisan.

Before the meeting, it looked as though Spitzer’s plan would sail through. But the possible change from a general law system to a charter left many questions unanswered, board members said.

After a 35-minute debate, they voted, 4 to 1, to direct the registrar of voters to place the charter plan, Measure V, on the March 5 ballot. Supervisor Chuck Smith dissented.

A charter committee supported Spitzer’s plan, but two supervisors wanted more research. A third, Smith, sought to amend it with options that frustrated Spitzer.

Some board members expressed concerns that introducing a charter system to help the vacancy dilemma might expose the county to frequent battles to change its charter, which has been Los Angeles County’s experience.

“Having a charter opens up a lot of questions,” said Supervisor Tom Wilson. “Should we elect our CEO? Should we have seven rather than five supervisors? This opens up the door to lots of interpretations.”

When Smith joined the debate, he made a substitute motion to have the charter committee continue its research and to have Spitzer’s proposal expanded to include a rule that called for all future board votes to be approved with a simple majority, 3 to 2, rather than the four-fifths “supermajority” now required under general law for major decisions.

Getting rid of the supermajority rule could give the three pro-El Toro airport supervisors greater power on board decisions, a fact that Spitzer, an El Toro opponent, was against.

Spitzer cautioned Smith that such a move would be divisive and turn the charter plan into an airport issue. He urged Smith not to “convolute this issue,” adding: “We know exactly what you’re doing. None of us are naive.”

But Smith was adamant. He wanted the charter to be put on the November ballot, not in March as Spitzer requested, and to delete the supermajority rule. He could not, however, muster support to derail Spitzer’s plan.

The charter committee, however, was directed to begin researching other implications of changing to a charter. One possibility is that voters may be asked to cast a vote on both Spitzer’s plan and whether a charter is necessary.

Voters soundly defeated the last attempt to change to a charter system in 1996, even though a charter would give voters greater say over how the county is run. Ideas supported by a previous charter commission, which grew out of Orange County’s 1994 bankruptcy, included a part-time Board of Supervisors; a powerful, elected county chief executive officer; privately run jails; salary caps for county employees; and an appointed county treasurer who could be fired at will.