Sheriff, D.A. Face Off With County Over Budget

In California law enforcement circles, Ventura County’s sheriff and district attorney are looked upon with envy.

Instead of the usual budget squabbles, a local ordinance ensures that Sheriff Bob Brooks and Dist. Atty. Greg Totten enjoy protected funding with guaranteed annual increases -- a reliable money pot not found anywhere else in the state.

The decade-long windfall has fueled a 77% increase in county law enforcement’s treasury, putting more deputies in patrol cars and prosecutors in courtrooms.

But two years ago, Ventura County supervisors laid down a different law, voting to cap the inflationary increases that the Sheriff’s Department, the district attorney’s office and two other public safety agencies receive each year. The formula that allowed law enforcement’s rapid growth was so flawed, they said, that it would bankrupt the county if left unchecked.

The decision put the board in a showdown with the popular lawmen, who responded last week with political firepower.

Brooks announced plans to begin closing two county jails by the end of the month to help cover a proposed $10-million budget gap.

The sheriff and district attorney threatened to sue the Board of Supervisors unless the prior cost-of-living standard, which generated 7%-10% annual funding increases, is reinstated.

If the board does not do so, Brooks and Totten said they will take the issue before voters -- no light threat in the law-and-order county.

The outcome could tilt the balance of power at the County Government Center for years to come, analysts say. Many believe supervisors gave up control of the county’s budget in approving the original funding deal and will have to fight a powerful law enforcement empire to get it back.

“It’s a classic confrontation,” said Herb Gooch, a political analyst at Cal Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks. “Brooks and Totten are looking for what they think they need and are taking a hard line. But the board has an overriding interest in how they are going to balance the budget.”

At issue is a public safety funding law adopted by supervisors in 1994, after a citizens’ group supported by law enforcement leaders threatened to put it on a ballot.

The ordinance requires that all county proceeds from a special half-cent sales tax adopted by statewide voters in 1993 be given to four public safety agencies: Sheriff’s Department, district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and probation department. This year, the four departments will share $50 million.

On top of that, the agencies are guaranteed annual cost-of-living increases paid out of the county’s general fund. The county initially did not control the size of the increases and public safety enjoyed 7%-10% inflationary hikes for much of the 1990s.

Outpacing Income

But in 2001, a new board majority capped the cost-of-living increase at the consumer price index, about 3.75%. They had to do so, supervisors said, because public safety’s spending was growing twice as fast as the county’s income.

“At home, you don’t spend more than you make,” said Supervisor Steve Bennett, who joined the board that year. “Well, it’s the same for county government. It’s outrageous to ask the taxpayers to fund that formula.”

Even with the change, Ventura County stands out for its financing of public safety, an analysis by a statewide group shows.

It is the only county in California that directs all its Proposition 172 funds to law enforcement by ordinance, said Rubin Lopez, a legislative analyst with the California State Assn. of Counties.

And it is one of few counties that tightly restrict which departments can share in the revenue. Many counties more loosely define public safety to include the coroner’s office, mental health services and even alcohol and drug programs, Lopez said.

Budget figures supplied by the county executive’s office clearly show that public safety funding in Ventura County has exploded compared with other county departments.

General fund spending on public safety has grown 77% since 1994, the year the ordinance took effect. Meanwhile, spending on all other government services grew just 24%, the numbers show.

The four public safety departments also added 872 employees during the same period, while the number of workers in the rest of the county declined by 130.

The sheriff disputed the analysis, accusing the county administrators of not counting all general government workers. And most of the gains in sheriff’s jobs were paid for with grants and city contracts, Brooks said.

Brooks doesn’t dispute that public safety, in general, has grown faster, but said that is beside the point.

“These analyses don’t change the fact that we are being underfunded for our services today,” he said. “The fact is that what they are proposing will cut vital services.”

Brooks contends that the 2003-04 budget recommended for his department is $10 million short of what he needs to avoid deputy layoffs. Totten, meanwhile, says that he needs $2.8 million more than is being proposed by county budget managers.

Law enforcement’s supporters say supervisors should return to the previous funding standard, arguing it has done exactly what voters intended.

The board adopted the funding law only after residents had gathered 58,000 signatures to place the issue on the ballot.

The tough-on-crooks reputation is crucial when a county is neighbors with a sprawling metropolis like Los Angeles, said Pat Buckley, president of the Ventura County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.

“The Crips and the Mexican Mafia don’t come over the hill, because they know if they get caught they are going to spend a lot of time in prison. We are tough here,” said Buckley, a 28-year sheriff’s sergeant. “I just hate to see all of the work we’ve done fall apart because of money.”

With its affluent population and family-oriented suburbs, Ventura County was already one of the safest regions in the Western United States before the ordinance was adopted.

But crime declined even further over the last decade, tracking a national trend, FBI statistics show.

The Ventura County crime rate has decreased more and stayed down longer than those of California and the U.S., and hovers today at about half of the U.S. rate.

The county crime rate in eight categories of serious offenses reported to the FBI has dropped from a peak of about 44 per 1,000 residents in 1991 to less than 23 last year.

The rate of violent crime -- homicide, rape, robbery and felony assault -- has dropped from a peak of 5.5 per 1,000 residents in 1992 to 2.6 last year.

It’s that quality of life that law enforcement’s supporters say they are not willing to compromise -- no matter the cost.

“My hope and desire is we can resolve this through negotiations,” said Harvey Plaks, a Moorpark investigator and vice president of Citizens for a Safe Ventura County. “If not, we are prepared to go to battle.”

County Executive Officer Johnny Johnston said he is willing to listen to reasonable solutions. But the county cannot return to the former funding levels without inviting catastrophe, he said.

“They have had a false sense of wealth and they didn’t manage the money they were given very well,” Johnston said. “And shame on us for not shouting sooner and louder that this was going the wrong way.”