Nothing for You, Everything for Them

To understand the spirit behind the board’s proposal our analysis begins at the end of the proposed document.

Analysis
Section VII Conflicting Measures states:

“If any measure, appearing on a future ballot, addresses the issues of Supervisor terms or Supervisor compensation, in a way that conflicts with the treatment of these subjects in this measure, and if that measure is approved by a majority vote of those voting on the measure, then Section 207 (on taxation) of the Charter of San Bernardino County will be repealed.” (our emphasis)

Voters should understand this section exactly for what it is – a threat. Essentially, the board is communicating to voters, “leave our pay and term limits alone, or we will repeal the supposed tax protection offered in this charter amendment.”

Proposed Charter Amendment 2022

1 file(s) 333.88 KB

View/Download

An honest title for this section would be “Term Limit Resets for the Current Board of Supervisors.”

Analysis
The key language in this section is:

“No person may serve for more than three terms as County Supervisor, regardless of the District represented. For the First, Third, and Fifth Supervisorial Districts, any term or portion of a term served prior to noon on Monday, January 6, 2025, shall not count toward the term limit. For the Second and Fourth Supervisorial Districts, any term or portion of a term served prior to noon on Monday, January 2, 2023, shall not count toward the term limit.” (our emphasis)

Based on this language the currently sitting supervisors, should they be reelected, could serve:

The 2020 local incumbent win rate for California was 80%.^[1] Because incumbent win rates are so high it is reasonable to expect sitting supervisors will remain in office the maximum number of years.

[1] Ballotpedia, ‘Election Results, 2020: Incumbent win rates by state’, Accessed 7/28/2022

With one exception, this section offers voters nothing new. Other than a change from three-fifths to four-fifths, the remainder of the section simply paraphrases voters’ rights described in the California State Constitution. Further, the four-fifths requirement appears to be of questionable value.

Analysis
The entire section is presented below.

“Any tax increase passed by the Board of Supervisors must be approved by a 4/5’s vote of the Board of Supervisors and be placed on the ballot at the next available statewide general election, following the timelines in the Elections Code, for approval by qualified voters. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors, when acting as the governing body of a Board-governed Special District, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, or the San Bernardino County Flood Control District must approve any tax increase by a 4/5’s vote and place the tax increase on the ballot at the next available statewide general election, under the timelines in the Elections Code, for approval by qualified voters. If a tax is proposed by property owners this section does not apply.”

Under California law the Board of Supervisors’ “…may not impose new taxes without a vote of the people.” In fact, “A county can only impose those taxes, assessments, and fees which the Legislature or the Constitution allow the county to impose and which are approved by either a simple or two-thirds majority of local voters.”^[2] In short – voters approve new or increased taxes. County supervisors simply approve when a tax increase is presented to the voters.

Setting aside the “four-fifths” phrase, readers must understand Section 207 offers nothing new to voters. It simply reiterates Article XII C § 2 and 3 of the California state constitution.

Sec. 2 (b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote.

Sec. 2 (d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.

The four-fifths requirement is new. Currently a three-fifths majority vote by the board is required to place a tax increase proposal before the voters. We agree the increase is a benefit to the voters. However, in effect the benefit is marginal at best and more likely is entirely cynical.

The Board of Supervisors’ actions associated with the 2018 expansion of Fire Protection Service Zone Five (FP-5) show the questionable value of the four-fifths requirement. In 2018, the Board of Supervisors’ voted three to two to expand FP5 to cover all unincorporated (and some incorporated) areas of the county. A consequence of that expansion was that unincorporated residents were saddled with an additional special tax. The special tax increase was never presented to the voters as required by Article XII C.3 of the Constitution.

Despite County Counsel’s assertions,^[3] a four-fifths vote requirement would not have precluded the expansion of FP. As a service zone expansion, the board’s action was legally distinct from a tax proposal governed by Article XII C § 2 and 3. Even if Section 207 was in the county charter in 2018, the board passed the expansion by a 3 to 2 vote. The 4/5’s clause would have provided no benefit and unincorporated tax-payers would still be disenfranchised.

[2] California State Association of Counties, ‘County Structure & Powers’, Accessed 8/1/2022

[3] San Bernardino County, ‘Consolidated Agenda for the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting’, Time Stamp 45:50 to 46:22, Accessed 8/1/2022

In the November 2020 general election, San Bernardino County voters overwhelmingly approved a pay reduction, and one, four-year term limit for the Board of Supervisors. The board immediately sued and Measure K has been working through the courts.

In an act of intellectual dishonesty, the board fails to mention that Measure K was strongly upheld in a tentative ruling by California’s 4th District Court of Appeal. While the ruling remains tentative, the Board was aware of and clearly understood the legal implications of the tentative ruling. The writing is on the wall. Measure K, with its reduced compensation and single four-year term, was approved by the courts and will be the law for the county.

Analysis
The significant portion of the new charter amendment proposed by the Board of Supervisors reads as follows:

“If the proposed Charter Amendments in Section II of this Measure are approved, they would replace the provisions contained in Measure ‘K.’”

With one sentence, the board proposes to dispose of the entirety of Measure K and the will of the more than two-thirds voters that approved the measure and do so in a deceitful way where they combine this with a purported tax protection. This is not only politicians trying to fool the people all the time (they did this before in 2012) but it’s not legal either as our state’s constitution requires that measures put before the people be limited to a single subject (Article II, Section 8(d) – California Constitution).

Rather than accept compensation on par with the normal household in the county, as approved by the voters in Measure K, the Board of Supervisors proposes to grant themselves more than one-quarter of a million dollars in total compensation per year.

Rather than accept one, four-year term as approved by the voters in Measure K, the Board of Supervisors asks voters to reset their current term limit, and allow them to serve another three terms.

In effect, the Board of Supervisors asks voters to grant them a total of $4 million dollars in compensation and 16 more years in office. The only thing each member of the board must do is to be re-elected.

Measure K Tentative Ruling 2022

1 file(s) 2.23 MB

View/Download

Voters, no matter where they land on the political spectrum, should roundly reject the county’s MEASURE “D” TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT REFORM. Preserving the stipulations of Measure K will elect voters representatives unconcerned with re-election. Rather, they will be committed to short-term public service on behalf of their constituents.

This will gut the pay-to-play environment that drives county politics today. For example, a lead voice in support of the Board of Supervisors’ proposal is a developer that recently received a $64 million legal settlement from the county supervisors. Funds sourced from that award were funneled back to supervisors in the form of political donations.

San Bernardino County Supervisors are presenting voters a sham. Purporting to offer up Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform, in reality the supervisors’ proposed amendment is nothing but a crass attempt to remain in office for as long as possible while getting paid as much as possible.

This cynical use of the local political system threatens the rights and liberties of a free people.