As the principal author of the Measure M2 Ordinance, a 2006 ballot measure to fund transportation improvements and the first Measure M – its predecessor in 1990 – I was taken aback by Wednesday’s column from Norberto Santana Jr.
Mr. Santana’s claim that the Orange County Transportation Authority is attempting to remove taxpayer safeguards couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the proposed amendment to the Ordinance does the exact opposite and strengthens the independence of its pioneering Taxpayer Oversight Committee.
By way of background – which was lacking in Mr. Santana’s column – it’s no surprise that Orange County has always been an exceptionally tough place to obtain voter acceptance for a tax increase. This was true in the 1980s and early 1990s when the margin for approval was a simple majority and, of course, even more so in 2006, when the margin needed for approval was two-thirds.
Orange County voters were, during the period for which I developed transportation ballot measures, overwhelmingly skeptical that tax revenues would be spent by their elected representatives solely for the purposes spelled out in a ballot measure. That is why the concept of an independent oversight committee, consisting of taxpayers not beholden to elected officials for their appointment or tenure, was developed.
Subsequently, the concept of taxpayer oversight of local government tax and bond measures has become nearly ubiquitous. But Orange County is notable for having done it first, and having devised a method using the Orange County Grand Jurors’ Association for recruitment and appointment of taxpayer representatives that ensures they are truly independent. The County’s elected Auditor-Controller position – which does not serve on the OCTA Board – was designated to serve as the permanent Chair of the independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee to provide continuity.
What Mr. Santana did get right in his column is that there clearly are politics at play between the current elected County Auditor-Controller Andrew Hamilton and the elected County Board of Supervisors, who also serve on the OCTA Board of Directors. As soon as Mr. Santana raises the issues of Republicans vs Democrats, where their support lies, and the political disagreements between Mr. Hamilton and the Board of Supervisors, which funds his office, the notion that this is about independence for taxpayer oversight falls apart.
What Mr. Hamilton is after amounts to veto power over the wishes of the overall independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee. Voters should rightly be leery to delegate that responsibility to the whims of one elected official. His claim strips the citizen members of their independent watchdog role and subjugates their work to the political judgment of one person — himself. To arrive at this conclusion requires creative, contortionist cherry-picking of selective language in the ballot measure and Ordinance. I can assure you this absolutely was not what was intended when they were drafted and subsequently passed by the voters — either in 1990 or 2006.
OCTA’s proposed amendment to the Measure M Ordinance clarifies that the elected Auditor-Controller does not have the authority to override the findings of the independent committee members. It leaves completely intact the authority of the Committee, as an independent group that includes the Auditor-Controller, to determine how best to oversee and audit spending, and issue findings. It is unfortunate that an amendment is needed, but it is completely justified and consistent with the original intent of the Ordinance. This is precisely the sort of situation for which the amendment process was developed.
One final point that should not be overlooked, the Measure M sales tax program in Orange County has delivered billions of dollars of transportation improvements over the past three decades. Among other highlights, O.C. has the highest ranked pavement condition in the state, innovative local shuttle programs, water-quality and habitat protection programs, subsidized senior and disabled bus fares, and a freeway system – that although it will never account for all rush hour traffic – performs extremely well and is in much better condition than its neighboring counties.
And while all of that has been happening, for 32 consecutive years the independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee has found that OCTA has been spending Measure M funds in compliance with the Ordinance. Not everything is about politics. Sometimes it is about following the rules and doing the right thing for the citizens and taxpayers of Orange County.
Monte Ward worked for more than forty years in the transportation field with a specialty in helping California counties develop local transportation sales tax measures. He is retired and raises macadamia nuts on a ranch in Santa Barbara County.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.