Not So Fast on Measure V

Measure V, one of two local countywide issues on the March 5 ballot, seems like a simple, uncomplicated change.

Why not support letting local residents have an election so they could choose a mid-term replacement to fill vacancies on the Board of Supervisors instead of having representatives appointed by the governor?

But Measure V goes deeper than that. It is more a partisan political maneuver cloaked in the attractive dress of local choice.

Measure V’s primary goal appears aimed at keeping Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from appointing a replacement, possibly a Democrat, to fill the Third District seat of Supervisor Todd Spitzer, should Spitzer, as expected, win election to the Assembly in November. Proponents argue that it allows the citizens to vote on vacancies that occur on the Board of Supervisors, nothing more and nothing less. Philosophically we’re not opposed to that.

But the measure does a lot more. It creates a charter county. And that end-run around the more basic question of whether or not Orange County should be a charter county, and what a charter should contain, is what we find troubling.

The measure has even raised a legal question over whether adoption of the charter provision would nullify supervisors’ term limits. Proponents, supported by a county counsel opinion, insist that no other laws would be affected. But legal challenges cannot entirely be ruled out.

Ballot proponents note that other major counties in the state work under a charter rather than by general law, in which the legislature drafts the laws of governance. That’s true.

But those other charters are meaty, seriously studied documents taking an in-depth approach to local government and are tailor-made to include the features residents find more desirable than the state’s general law provisions.

They are not just a one-note motivated document like the one being proposed on Orange County’s March 5 ballot.

The question of adopting a charter has been kicking around Orange County for decades. In fact, following the county bankruptcy, and yet another serious study, it went to a vote in 1996 and was soundly rejected.

If Orange County is finally going to abandon its general law status, residents should hold out for another in-depth look. That would be better than an emotional appeal for local control driven by a partisan political agenda and covering only one issue--changing the method of selection for a county board vacancy. Spitzer, a Republican, as are all the board members, is behind Measure V.

That’s understandable, considering that Republican leaders had asked him to reconsider his Assembly run if it led to Davis naming his replacement.

Measure V is the insurance policy against that.

But as an example of the broad net cast by Measure V, what about vacancies to other elected county posts? Why not put them all before voters and take them out of the governor’s and supervisors’ hands?

If residents have changed their minds since 1996 and want to reconsider a charter form of county government, they should reject Measure V and hold out for a serious ballot proposition that really addresses that question more directly.