Riverside County Board Changes Endorsement Policy to Enhance Transparency

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA - A proposal by Supervisor Kevin Jeffries to change county policy to ensure that the Board of Supervisors' endorsements of state and federal legislation are accurately reflected in the public record was unanimously approved Tuesday.

"This is intended to make small changes and increase accountability," Jeffries said. "It doesn't prohibit, slow down or stop the process."

Jeffries targeted board policy A-27, which spells out standards for legislative advocacy.

The supervisor was taken aback last month -- while the board was on winter hiatus -- after he learned from state Sen. Jeff Stone, R-La Quinta, that the county had been listed among those entities endorsing Senate Bill 1, which along with Assembly Bill 1 seeks to hike gasoline taxes over a three-year period.

• SEE PREVIOUS: Lake Elsinore Supervisor Wants Clarity in Way Board Endorses Bills After Confusion Over SB 1 Endorsement

Jeffries blamed a lack of clarity in board policy for the county's inclusion in that list.

"Improved communication between the county's legislative advocates, our Executive Office and the Board of Supervisors will allow the county to more effectively achieve its legislative goals on behalf of constituents, and requiring publication of legislative endorsements and status will provide more transparency and information to the general public and the media," Jeffries wrote in his proposal.

Jeffries received board support for a modification to A-27 that, in the future, will specify that endorsements are for legislation as it is conceived on a certain date -- not necessarily in amended form.

The board also approved a new requirement that all endorsement letters be placed on the board's consent calendar for the benefit of board members and the public.

The Executive Office will also have to provide monthly updates on the status of bills publicly backed or opposed by the board.

However, Jeffries' request that letters of endorsement or opposition contain the actual votes of each supervisor to make it clear whether an action was unanimous or by majority met resistance.

"That kind of dilutes the power of an endorsement," Supervisor Marion Ashley said.

Board Chairman John Tavaglione agreed, saying that highlighting individual votes in letters to lawmakers risked "muddling" the board's consensus.

Jeffries dropped the request.

According to the supervisor, the SB 1 endorsement was in error because it gave the impression that the entire board was behind any effort to improve transportation infrastructure, including by way of tax increases.

"While I do indeed support the state re-prioritizing its spending on roads and other necessary infrastructure, SB 1 would increase the gasoline excise tax by 12 cents per gallon, increase the price-based excise tax by 7.5 cents a gallon, increase diesel excise tax by 20 cents a gallon, add a 4 percent diesel sales tax (and) raise everyone's vehicle registration fee by $38 per vehicle," Jeffries said.

"Altogether, this is a $5.5 billion tax and fee increase on the residents of California, at a time when money is continually wasted on other programs and non-critical projects like the High Speed Rail debacle," he said.

Stone posted a Facebook message last month expressing shock that the county had appeared as an endorsee of SB 1.

"It's hard enough fighting these taxes, only to have my own county and my own home city (Temecula) endorsing them!," the senator wrote.

According to Jeffries, a follow-up inquiry by his office revealed that the county's annual legislative platform, which the board unanimously approved, contained language favoring efforts to boost funding for "federal and state transportation obligations." The county's lobbying team used that, as well as an item approved by the board in April 2015 endorsing a bill similar to SB 1, to justify registering the county as backing SB 1, Jeffries said.

He criticized the presumption that a vague statement affirming the need to increase infrastructure funding would be taken to mean a thumbs-up for tax increases, and he pointed out that the April 2015 board action had been incorrectly recorded by the clerk's office, which put him down as an abstention instead of a "no" vote, which he cast at that time.

– By City News Service / Patch file photo by Renee Schiavone