Supervisors: Give up your discretionary funds
It’s nice to know that Merced County supervisors will have a new form to fill out out whenever they want to hand over a portion of the $40,000 in taxpayer money at their discretion to, well, anyone.
Except they won’t actually be required to fill it out. It will just be there.
We suggest the county not even bother printing the forms. It would be a waste of paper.
Supervisor Daron McDaniel has been crusading against supervisor discretionary funds – $40,000 per supervisor per year to spend however the supervisor sees fit. But he’s all alone on the board. His latest effort was to devise a form detailing what the money would be spent on, who would spend it and other details. It would provide better transparency and accountability.
As is, supervisors don’t have to justify their expenditures, they simply have to get a majority to go along. County money can go to social clubs, educational projects, youth activities, or to hire administrative aides. It can be banked, then used for larger projects.
A lot of groups love getting the money, and many need it. Perhaps that’s why many go out of their way to thank the supervisor for his or her generosity. Undoubtedly, many recipients will work extra hard for that supervisor in the next election. It’s gratitude, not quid pro quo.
That’s paternalistic hubris at best and vote-buying at worst. It’s not the supervisor’s money that goes to buy the curtains, or baseballs or party supplies; that money comes straight out of the pockets of taxpayers. They’re the ones who deserve the thanks.
What taxpayers should be saying is “no thanks” to discretionary funds.
Yes, there are many groups who use the money for extremely good purposes. We not only applaud them, we want them to continue their good work. If they brought their requests before the entire board, they would undoubtedly be funded. But what about groups represented by individuals who aren’t as popular with all supervisors? What about worthy organizations that lack the ability to generate votes? What about organizations that exclude people for one reason or another? What about groups with political clout and plenty of wealthy members?
Some of the above wouldn’t get any money, others shouldn’t.
Other counties with discretionary funds have more rules and yet the money still gets into deserving hands. In Marin County, supervisors recommend donations from a board-controlled fund, but the county executive has final say. Marin also bars continuing or annual gifts to the same organizations or even consecutive-year grants – making certain more people share. Even with these rules, three civil grand juries have labeled them “slush funds” and recommended the practice be discontinued.
Quietly doling out gifts is an anachronistic practice ripe for abuse.
The temptation to use some of the money for dubious purposes proved too great for some Los Angeles County supervisors, who also have unrestricted discretionary funds. Some supervisors there were throwing lavish parties for donors and lobbyists, hiring chauffeurs and using the money to polish their public images. After the Los Angeles Times reported on these uses, L.A. County supervisors were required to submit each expenditure to four county employees – the county executive, the board executive, the auditor and the county counsel. Then, every three months, the expenditures were posted on the county website. Many say that’s still not enough.
In San Joaquin County, supervisors ended the use of discretionary funds in 2007 after one supervisor tried to spend $700,000 in his hometown.
Here in Merced County, supervisors don’t want to be bothered even to fill out a single form.
There’s another, better option: Get rid of discretionary funds altogether.
This story was originally published July 22, 2015 at 4:13 PM with the headline "Supervisors: Give up your discretionary funds."