County OKs vote on term limits

Ventura County voters will decide whether members of the Board of Supervisors would be limited to three terms in office under reform plans approved by the panel on Tuesday.

The term-limits proposal will appear on the November 2008 general election ballot. If approved, members of the board would have to leave office after serving three consecutive four-year terms.

But the clock wouldn’t start ticking until Jan. 1, 2009, meaning that the current supervisors could remain in office for up to 12 years after their next elections.

Supervisor Peter Foy, who brought the issue to the board, said California voters favor putting restrictions on time in elected office. Term limits are in place at the state level as well as eight counties, he said.

Such limits prevent “career politicians” and give challengers with fresh ideas a real shot at public service, said Foy, who runs an insurance brokerage in addition to his elected duties.

Foy pledged to push for term limits in his long-shot campaign to take the 4th District seat last year and has said he intends to serve only one term before returning full time to his business.

“This gives [Ventura County] voters an opportunity to vote on what is very popular in California,” Foy said.

Three other supervisors, Steve Bennett, Kathy Long and Linda Parks, agreed to place the proposed law on the November 2008 ballot. Supervisor John Flynn, who has been on the board for 30 years, abstained, saying he didn’t want to be accused of being a hypocrite.

“I can see the headlines -- ‘30-year supervisor votes for term limits,’ ” Flynn said.

Foy’s measure does not equate to a lifetime ban once a supervisor has fulfilled three terms. But a candidate would have to wait a full, four-year term before being eligible to serve again, Foy said.

With the seats of three supervisors up for election in June 2008, the board also voted to update a campaign finance law that has been in place for three years.

The revisions, approved on a narrow 3-2 vote, raise the amount that individuals and political committees can donate, to $700 from $600 for candidates who agree to hold spending below $173,000.

Candidates who refuse spending limits can accept contributions of $350 per person, up from $300.

The board majority also agreed to contract with private attorneys to review alleged violations of the law instead of relying on volunteer lawyers and county staff.

Foy and Flynn voted against the revised rules, criticizing them for different reasons.

Foy said the donation limits were too restrictive and pushed for a $2,000-per-person cap for candidates who accept spending limits and $1,000 for those who don’t. He also criticized the potential cost of administering the law, which he said was overly complex and confusing.

Flynn, meanwhile, was critical of a revised provision that allows a candidate to be released from a spending-limit pledge once an opponent who has refused to accept limits spends at least 25% of the voluntary spending cap. The previous trigger was 75%.

Flynn said the lower percentage “guts” the ordinance. Flynn also objected to an incumbent’s ability to roll over cash left from an old campaign into a new one.

“There’s one of us here who has close to $100,000 to roll over,” Flynn said, apparently referring to Bennett, who is up for reelection next year. “Is that fair?”

A check of Bennett’s campaign finance documents shows that he had about $65,000 on hand in December. Flynn and Long, who also face reelection, had $1,800 and $1,500, respectively.

But with the June 2008 primary a little over a year away, a board majority -- Bennett, Long and Parks -- overruled those complaints for now. Though the law can be unwieldy, it has made it tougher for candidates to reap huge donations and hide money, Bennett said.

“The public’s right to know trumps the inconvenience to candidates,” he said.

*

catherine.saillant@latimes.com