Trial on Ventura County Law Is Closer

The state Supreme Court has rejected Ventura County’s appeal of its lawsuit aimed at overturning a local public safety funding ordinance, raising the likelihood that a dispute over specific provisions of the law will proceed to a costly trial.

On a 5-1 vote, the justices declined to review the constitutionality of the 1995 ordinance. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry J. Walsh had declared the law legal and the 2nd District Court of Appeal declined in September to review that decision.

Wednesday’s notice was a blow to the Board of Supervisors, which had hoped an early decision on contested issues surrounding the ordinance would save taxpayers the expense of a trial.

Supervisors will meet in a special closed session today to consider their next step, said Chairman Steve Bennett. “This is the most important financial issue facing Ventura County and we tried to expedite getting an appellate court ruling,” he said.

The ruling, though disappointing, was not surprising because the state Supreme Court turns down about 95% of cases it is asked to review, he said.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard voted in favor of reviewing the county’s petition while a seventh justice, Janice R. Brown, recused herself for unknown reasons.

The decision settles, for now, the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4088, which provides a guaranteed stream of funding and inflationary increases for law enforcement agencies.

But a trial still looms over other issues, including differing definitions of inflation and a claim by Sheriff Bob Brooks and Dist. Atty. Greg Totten that the county has illegally diverted $50 million that should have gone to public safety departments.

Representatives from both sides say a trial could push the cost of the litigation to $3 million or more. Accounting experts would have to be hired to give testimony, and depositions of dozens of county employees involved in the budget process would have to be taken, officials have said.

The ordinance has caused strife within the Hall of Administration virtually from the day it was approved on a 3-2 vote.

County administrators and public safety managers have for years haggled over the inflation formula. Brooks and Totten sued the Board of Supervisors last year over changes to that formula, and supervisors countersued, claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Brooks and Totten have steadfastly defended the finance law as the will of the people, noting that supervisors passed it only after supporters had gathered enough signatures to put it before voters.

On Wednesday, Brooks noted that three courts have ruled against supervisors and that it is time for them to sit down for serious settlement negotiations. He said he and Totten have been holding informal settlement sessions with County Executive Officer Johnny Johnston.

But unless the board gives the county manager authority to settle, nothing will happen, Brooks said.

“We believe that conceptually we are close to an agreement that would work for the county and for the board,” he said. “We think we could very quickly get the board’s approval if they sit down with us.”

Brooks declined to give details of a proposed settlement but said any agreement would probably go before voters to seal the deal.

“If we all keep the public’s interest in mind, we can find a solution,” he said.

Bennett countered that informal settlement talks have not yet borne fruit. Supervisors will hash out their options at today’s meeting, he said.

“There has not been anything offered that’s made sense, so I don’t know where we go from here,” he said.