Duffy's Attack on County Budget Blows Up a Storm of Controversy

By BARRY M. HORSTMAN

July 7, 1988 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

Firing a new rhetorical salvo in his bid for a bigger budget, San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy has told the Board of Supervisors that some county programs are unnecessary, that many others have bloated staffs and that county government in general is “non-responsive to the public’s priorities.”

In a sharply worded, 11-page memo made public Wednesday, Duffy lobbied for a multimillion-dollar increase in his own budget by attacking many other county departments as either nonessential or inefficient, reserving some of his most caustic comments for Chief Administrative Officer Norman Hickey.

Hickey’s own office, Duffy wrote, is “full of fat to trim,” and the sheriff suggested that what he sees as misdirected priorities in the budget stem from Hickey’s “bureaucratic baloney” about the board’s lack of discretion over state or federally mandated programs.

Noting that Hickey’s proposed $1.3-billion budget originally targeted many popular programs for cuts, Duffy claims that Hickey told him that, by doing so, he was following a politically motivated “game plan” designed to persuade voters to support two key tax and spending propositions on last month’s ballot. Hickey angrily denied ever making such a comment, adding: “I might have to start using a tape recorder whenever I talk to him.”

Budget According to Duffy

The memo, a kind of Budget According to Duffy, clearly demonstrates that, from the sheriff’s perspective, there are few services or programs within county government that could not be cut, with the notable exception of his own department. Duffy has requested a $103-million budget, $13 million more than Hickey recommended, and a 16% increase over his fiscal 1988 budget of $88.4 million.

“It’s nothing more than a budget strategy on the sheriff’s part,” Hickey said. “In that context, it’s very understandable and very predictable.”

Duffy wrote the memo in response to requests from Supervisors Susan Golding and John MacDonald, who asked the sheriff to document his often-used complaint that many county programs could--and should--be drastically reduced or eliminated without damaging essential services.

When he appeared before the supervisors Tuesday, Duffy refused to detail the letter and, when questioned by reporters later, declared it a “confidential” document, though he could cite no legal justification for doing so. County Counsel Lloyd Harmon, however, ruled Wednesday that the memo was a public document, clearing the way for its release.

In his letter, Duffy suggests that the supervisors reduce their own staffs by half, proposes massive cuts or outright elimination of many programs and complains that “our entire budget process is backward” because it is initially assembled, not by elected officials, but rather by “the CAO and his legion of mid-level bureaucrats.”

The programs or departments that Duffy recommended eliminating include the county’s Veterans Service and Transborder Affairs offices, the Department of Revenue and Recovery, and Hickey’s own $1.2-million-a-year Office of Financial Management. Using terminology such as “the right hand never knows what the left is doing,” Duffy also pointed to what he described as “costly inefficiencies” in a wide range of other programs, and suggested that many county-run services could be performed more economically by private firms.

Inaccurate Information

However, Hickey, the supervisors and other county officials argued that many of Duffy’s proposals were based on inaccurate information or assumptions--such as his questioning of the fact that the board has no discretion over about 95% of the county’s budget, which consists largely of funds that finance programs required by Washington or Sacramento. Some of Duffy’s other proposals, county officials added, are not feasible or economically advisable. They described other recommendations as illegal.

“It’s frustrating to read something like this when so much of it is not based on fact,” Golding said. “I appreciate that the sheriff only has responsibility over law enforcement, not the entire budget. Still, as as an elected official, a lot of this information is readily available to him. We shouldn’t have to explain the facts of life about some of these things to him.”

As an example, Golding noted that, although the Department of Revenue and Recovery costs the county $7.3 million annually, it collects $67 million a year in unpaid traffic fines, child-support payments and other funds, providing revenue for other county programs.

Climactic Showdown

“That’s hardly a drain--it would make no sense to eliminate that,” Golding said, adding that other programs that Duffy proposed eliminating also lead to lower county costs overall.

Similarly, Golding dismissed Duffy’s suggestion that the county fully recover its costs in areas such as animal control and land planning through fees as “just telling us to do what we have already done.” Golding also noted that acceptance of Duffy’s proposal to cut by nearly half the county’s $21-million indigent defense program, which he described as a “scandalous . . . abuse of public funds,” would contradict state mandates and court orders.

“Frankly, I’m surprised he doesn’t know that,” Golding said.

Hickey added: “A lot of this is explained in the budget. If he had taken the time to read it, John would know it.”

The memo, combined with some of Duffy’s other recent actions, sets the stage for a climactic showdown on the sheriff’s budget early next month.

On Tuesday, Duffy sought to dramatize the dangers that his deputies face in crowded jails by using a corridor outside the supervisors’ chamber to display many weapons seized from prisoners. The visual highlight of the impromptu news conference was Duffy’s demonstration of a prisoner-made blowgun, after which he remarked, “That ought to give you something to lead the news with!”

“I’m sure it will be very theatrical,” Golding said of next month’s budget hearing. “John’s an expert at that.”