Orange County Voices : COUNTY IN BANKRUPTCY : There’s No Urgent Need to Reshape the Rules of Governance : General-law government is fine. What is needed, though, are vigilant elected officials and an informed electorate.

As Yogi Berra is reputed to have said, “It’s deja vu all over again.� The current debate over whether Orange County should become a charter county--one governed by a set of rules promulgated and agreed to by the electorate--or remain a general-law county and be governed by state rules has been examined numerous times. This issue has arisen because of the current fiscal crisis, which has motivated a search for more accountability from public officials. The debate deflects attention from the real issue--the leadership of county supervisors and other elected officials.

Those who champion a charter suggest that having one will give the supervisors more direct control of other elected officials, enable them to appoint a chief executive officer and allow for more privatization.

Ironically, a charter is not needed to do any of these. Elected officials such as the treasurer and county recorder could be converted into appointed officials, and permission to privatize government functions could be accomplished merely by having an Orange County legislator introduce legislation to do so. That is one of the advantages of being a general-law county--such a move does not require a vote of the citizens.

Given the makeup of the current Legislature, passing such legislation should not be difficult. Today, interest in a charter has to do with accountability, yet county supervisors currently have the ability to oversee all elected officials, and in fact are mandated by the State Government Code to do so--especially when it comes to fiscal matters.

As for the suggestion that the county would benefit from a chief executive officer, it could have one today if the supervisors really wanted to delegate that power to their appointed county administrative officer (CAO) who in effect they have charged with managing the county.

In 1970, the Orange County Chamber of Commerce asked a task force to look into the desirability of adopting a charter. That task force said it was not needed at that time. The Board of Supervisors appointed a Charter Study Commission in 1980 to see if by adopting a charter the county could generate more revenue due to the passage of Proposition 13 and its fiscal impacts. I was a member of that nine-person commission, which included people such as Tom Fuentes, Bruce Sumner, Bob Shelton, Keith Murdoch, the late Rodger Howell and others. At the beginning of the study, members were split over whether having a charter would be advantageous. At the end of the in-depth analysis of all California counties and the pros and cons of charter versus general-law provisions, it was the unanimous decision of the commission that the county should remain a general-law county.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I suggest the county supervisors and others take a look at previous charter studies. I suspect that little has changed that would result in different findings from those of 1970 and 1980.

The real issue is not the structure of the county, it is the vigilance of our elected officials in overseeing county operations. It is easy to point to changes in structure as the solution for problems of management, yet there is no proof that counties with charters are better managed or more fiscally responsible than general-law counties.

A charter will not make officials more competent, responsible, ethical or innovative. What is needed is an informed electorate that cares enough about government to pay attention to it. Few people vote in local elections, and few realize that the Board of Supervisors today has all the power necessary to make sure the county is run in a sound fiscal manner.

It’s not a charter that is needed. What is essential is voters who demand responsible governance and know how their government functions. Also needed is the election of officials who look at their own behavior rather than structural change as a solution to management problems. Spending money to study once again the pros and cons of a charter is a luxury this county can’t afford!