August 05, 2013, 05:00 AM By Sue Lempert
This is a tale of good accounting practices versus public relations. San Mateo County Manager John Maltbie stirred up an outpouring of editorials, letters to the editor and chatter when he attacked the civil grand jury for a lack of transparency. He also didn’t like the grand jury’s recommendations regarding the county’s fiscal accountability.
Maltbie is not one to be taken lightly. He was called back from retirement to lead the county once again and supervisors have renewed his contract. They wish he would never leave because the county has been in excellent shape in his hands. The core of his objection to the grand jury’s criticism makes sense. It is dangerous for any governmental entity to use one-time or irregular sources of revenue for ongoing expenses. The cities and school districts who did this in times of financial crisis are still suffering the consequences. The grand jury felt that the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds, money left over after schools reach their funding requirements, was reliable enough to be shown as revenue in the operating budget. The county has received ERAF money since 2004. But Maltbie and the board have calculated this revenue separately from the regular budget because they are not guaranteed.
The problem, according to the grand jury, was that the county successfully went to the voters for a sales tax increase and did not reveal that these ERAF money made the actual amount on hand more than the advertised budget deficit. It’s smart accounting, but bad for public confidence in local government.
Meanwhile, the county has achieved a half-cent sales tax increase for the next 10 years by telling voters there would be drastic cuts unless the measure passed. There is no guarantee that ERAF money will be coming into county coffers regularly for the next 10 years. And the county, as a provider of indigent care, needs the funds. However, it’s bad news for future tax or bond measures.
The usually political savvy Maltbie made a big mistake in going after the grand jury. The grand jury, whose rules are governed by state law, is an investigative, not a governing body. Investigative bodies need to meet and question people in private. In contrast, we expect our elected officials to do their business in public. It’s not atypical for savvy politicos to go after the grand jury if they don’t like their recommendations. When a former grand jury advised that the county was going to lose its shirt if BART to SFO was approved, former state senator Quentin Kopp (the father of the BART extension) went ballistic. Grand juries perform a useful public service. We need to support them. And if local governments don’t like their recommendations, there is no law which says they have to carry them out. Some think that’s too bad.
***
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/opinions/2013-08-05/maltbie-versus-the-grand-jury/1772958.html
No comments:
Post a Comment