Consolidation Key to Bergeson Plan

* The story (“Proposed County Dissolution Is Reverse of National Trend,” April 12) misses a few important points about my proposal to remake (not dissolve) our county’s governance structure.

Consolidation, not dissolution, is the key to my plan’s success. Within the county, there are at least 46 special-purpose districts (water districts, park districts and irrigation districts) governed by separate boards and commissions. Do we really need separate administrators, managers, maintenance staff, headquarters and overhead for all of these districts? Rather than dissolving these districts, my plan tries to identify which services are truly regional in nature (like water, sewer, transportation, health care, social services) and which consolidated mechanism delivers them most efficiently.

I’m proposing eliminating the Board of Supervisors, not regional service delivery. Because the primary function of supervisors in urban counties is now the management of service delivery, why not assign the entire function to an elected (and qualified) manager? Despite the vast changes in urban counties, the supervisors themselves remain merely legislators in an era when we’re actually legislated upon from Sacramento and Washington. A vivid illustration of this fact is that less than 8% of our total county budget is discretionary. I fully recognize that the mandates may change with new thinking advocating “home rule” in our Capitols. If so, that would be terrific--and nothing in my plan inhibits locals’ ability to decide which services meet local needs.

Accountability remains in place. Despite the assertions of the “experts” cited in the article, I believe that eliminating cities is flat-out wrong. It’s hard to find any jurisdiction closer to the population and its needs. Cities are the right place to run urban police services. City councils are the right people to work with neighboring cities and local school boards. Working cooperatively with an elected county mayor, I am confident that the voters will get both effective regional service delivery and strong accountability from their public servants via my proposal.

Lastly, contrary to the Connecticut “weak county” system alluded to in the Times article, counties in California still perform a lion’s share of the state’s work when it comes to providing state-mandated services. And yes, we would be foolish to do away with the services or administer them in an inefficient, piecemeal manner. But we’re foolish, too, if we deny the fact that supervisors today are more likely to respond to decisions than make them.

Let all county supervisors throughout the state start admitting the truth. The urban California county no longer needs “land barons” for its board of supervisors. We may not even need a board. We need managers who can connect local residents with the real function of urban county government in 1995--effective delivery of regional services.

MARIAN BERGESON

County Supervisor, 5th District

* Marian Bergeson’s proposal for the county is outrageous, seeking to slip away citizens’ rights to elect county officials. Reading between the lines, through the articles in her proposal for county reorganization Ms. Bergeson is stating that the registered voters are responsible for the state of affairs in the county. Four months into the county bankruptcy fiasco and the board still refuses to acknowledge that the ultimate responsibility to properly oversee operations is the primary function of the Board of Supervisors. Let us not lose our constitutional rights over their incompetence.

SANDI SALTIEL

El Toro