Marin supervisors reject grand jury's recommendations on pet-project fund

By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -

Marin County supervisors rejected tough proposals to corral a special spending account critics call a "slush fund."

Supervisors did, however, either agree or "partially agree" with a number of Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommendations aimed at tightening the account's grant process and making it more transparent.

But they refused to heed the jury's advice that they relinquish all control of the program, bar subsidies for ongoing operations of grantees, eliminate consecutive-year grants to the same organization, and put pet project funding on ice if other Civic Center offices face budget cuts.

The action came as the county board endorsed an administration response to a jury report that recommended a series of reforms. A number of jury proposals regarding the spending account were part of changes officials approved last week, when supervisors gave the program a facelift while hailing it as a vital community service.

The board has agreed the account will be directed by the county administrator, who will make decisions on grants "sponsored" by supervisors, with a funding distribution goal of "geographic equity" to ensure that each supervisorial district gets a fair share of the money. Other changes involve cutting the budget 14 percent by capping the fund at $300,000 a year, limiting grants to between $1,000 and $10,000 and increasing accountability.

Under new procedures, allocations will be made to nonprofit agencies or "other government partners" three times a year, and any "unspent balances" will be returned to the county treasury. Any money in the account at the end of the fiscal year will be held in reserve for use on "one time" projects.

"This is ... consistent with what you adopted last week," County Administrator Matthew Hymel told the board of the response to the jury report.

Two citizens offered opposing views.

"We can do better," said realty agent Toni Shroyer of Novato, who is seeking to oust Supervisor Judy Arnold in 2014. The "continuation of the slush fund," she said, indicates that supervisors "aren't listening to the people."

But Laura Lovett of Larkspur, who related her experience of getting trapped for a time inside Larkspur's community garden compound at night because she couldn't read an old combination lock, called the pet project fund a lifesaver for small projects — including the recent $3,500 gate and lock upgrade at the garden. "You're fixing something that isn't broke," she told the board.

The supervisorial perk has prompted more than a decade of controversy over the propriety of officials spending as they please. No comparable county in the state provides its supervisors with a similar personal spending account.

The fund first drew the ire of the civil grand jury a decade ago, with jurors saying it nurtured political favor.