Measure A would give San Diego County supervisors more power over crucial roles

Voters will soon decide whether to adopt sweeping changes to San Diego County’s charter — the foundational document that sets the rules for how the county can be governed. 

Known as Measure A on the ballot, the proposal would establish independent oversight offices, require disclosure of spending data and extend term limits for the county Board of Supervisors. Supporters say it would increase transparency and modernize governance for a county that spends $8.6 billion annually and serves 3.3 million residents.

But a less talked about, often glossed over portion of this proposal would significantly expand the Board of Supervisors’ power over some of the county’s most consequential public servants. 

That means if approved, those responsible for public health, emergency response and the legal defense of people who cannot afford an attorney would all serve knowing that four of the county’s five elected leaders could remove them at any time, for any reason. Critics fear it’s a change that could make officials who are supposed to exercise independent judgment more vulnerable to the “whims” of politicians.

Political scientists and policy wonks, on the other hand, say democracy is about giving the people what they want.

Mike Bonin, executive director at the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles, said this proposal would give residents more of a voice over unelected officials who carry out the board’s policy.

“The public mood can swing pretty quickly,” he said in an interview. Granting appointment and removal power “makes things less predictable, because of the response to public mood.”

Under the proposal, supervisors would gain the power to confirm the top administrator’s appointments of an assistant and deputy, as well as the public health officer and the director of the Office of Emergency Services. They would also be able to remove any of those officials, with or without cause, with a four-fifths vote.

Then there’s the chief public defender. 

The proposal would give the Board of Supervisors the same power over the office whose independence from political influence, defense attorneys argue, is essential to the role and baked into the constitution.

Unlike the other officials covered by the proposal, a county’s chief public defender leads an office whose attorneys stand opposite the government in court, routinely taking adversarial — and sometimes unpopular — positions on behalf of clients who can’t afford to put up their own defense.

Kate Braner, who previously served as interim public defender, said this proposal would fundamentally change the office’s relationship to the county. 

“Public defenders need to make decisions based on their clients’ interests and the law, not political considerations,” Braner said in an email. “It could affect who holds the position and how the Public Defender approaches difficult decisions.”

The county Board of Supervisors is a five-person nonpartisan elected body, meaning each candidate for office appears on the ballot without party affiliation. In practice, however, party politics influence the board and its decisions as supervisors set policy and decide how taxpayer dollars are spent. The county’s top administrator, on the other hand, is appointed by the board and responsible for carrying out policy decisions and overseeing day-to-day operations, including the hiring and firing of most department heads.

The board ultimately voted along party lines — three Democrats voting yes, two Republicans voting no — to put the question before voters in November.

Mary Ellen Attridge, a former career public defender now in private practice, said she has no problem with granting the Board of Supervisors the power to confirm the public defender’s appointment. It’s the power to remove that official without cause that gives her pause.

“Given the political nature of the legal system itself, the firing power should have more specificity as to what would constitute a fireable offense,” Attridge said. “In other words, if there was financial mismanagement, or moral decay, or something along those lines, because what it does without specifying is it gives unchecked political power to the board. 

“And that means that the political whims, or needs sometimes, of whoever is in power would influence who the public defender is.”

Measure A also gives the Board of Supervisors the option to establish the public defender as an officer appointed directly by the board — rather than the top administrator. To make that happen, though, supervisors would first have to pass a new law, requiring two majority votes during public meetings. 

Many public defenders in California are appointed directly by the board — except for San Francisco, the only county in the state that elects its public defender by popular vote.

A bill vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom late last year aimed to remove the threat of termination without cause for public defenders. It would have required a showing of neglect of duty, malfeasance or misconduct, or other good cause, as well as a three-fifths vote from the Board of Supervisors.

Public defenders have a constitutional mandate to vigorously advocate for their clients and they need independence to do that, said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association.

“Public defenders need the freedom to take unpopular stances in defense of their clients,” she added, “occasionally drawing the ire of other county agencies, including the sheriff or county District Attorney.”

Measure A is not the only attempt this year to change a local government’s structure. In Chula Vista, a labor union-backed proposal to increase council pay, extend term limits and change contract bargaining rules was abandoned after public backlash. The proposal never made it to the ballot for Chula Vista voters.