Funding Dispute Intensifies

Tensions over public safety funding in Ventura County prompted another round of public criticism Tuesday, with the Board of Supervisors harshly denouncing recent comments by Dist. Atty. Greg Totten.

Totten last week cast suspicion on two studies that showed the county spends more on public safety than comparable counties, suggesting the results were intentionally skewed at the behest of County Executive Officer Johnny Johnston.

Supervisors wasted no time responding at their Tuesday board meeting.

Supervisor Judy Mikels accused Totten and Sheriff Bob Brooks of trying to sway public opinion against the board at a time when the two sides were engaged in a legal battle over law enforcement funding.

“We are doing ourselves a terrible disservice to keep this thing going,” Mikels said. “Let’s sit quietly and behave until [the lawsuit] is decided in the courts.”

Board Chairman Steve Bennett, meanwhile, suggested that Totten had too many prosecutors in his office and implied that cutting some of those positions might be a way to reduce costs in the coming year.

He defended the public safety studies as a legitimate attempt to determine whether the Board of Supervisors was insufficiently funding police and prosecutorial services, as Brooks and Totten contend.

“We legally cannot tell the sheriff [and district attorney] how to spend money,” Bennett said. “But the public certainly wants us to provide some accountability on whether we are providing the right amount of money.”

This latest dust-up comes as both sides are waiting for a ruling on the funding issue by Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh.

Brooks and Totten last year sued the Board of Supervisors for cutting their budgets over the last two years, alleging the action violated a local ordinance that protects public safety funding. Supervisors have countered with their own lawsuit alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Walsh is expected to issue a ruling within weeks.

Brooks and Totten did not attend Tuesday’s board sessions. But both later denied that Totten’s comments were part of a coordinated campaign to tarnish the board.

“We felt an obligation to correct a misleading impression that was left with the reports, which we did,” Brooks said. “There is nothing political about that. Nor is there anything political when we have to inform the public when we have to cut services because of budget cuts. That is what I’m supposed to do.”

Brooks said he intentionally did not attend the hearing because he did not want things to become confrontational.

“I didn’t want to make a big dramatic scene out of it,” he said.

Totten said he was surprised by the backlash over his comments. He sought only to correct a record that he saw as flawed by outdated information, the district attorney said.

Data used for the studies ended in 2000, the last year for which most of the figures were available when the reviews were done last summer. Since 2000, the sheriff and district attorney’s departments have seen millions of dollars in cuts, Totten said.

“We couldn’t let a report that was flawed and misleading be ignored. I stand by the letter I wrote ....But I didn’t realize this would produce the anger it apparently has produced.”

Johnston told supervisors Tuesday that he ordered the studies to get a “broad measure” of whether Ventura County was under-funding its public safety efforts.

Despite receiving low tax revenues compared with other counties, Ventura County has “pretty good results,” Johnston said.