Court Lets Clerk Prepare Tobacco Issue for Fall Ballot

Supporters of a controversial tobacco fund initiative were cheered Friday when a judge ruled that the county clerk can begin the process of putting the measure on the November ballot.

“This is an appropriate next step,” said Mark Barnhill, spokesman for Community Memorial Hospital, which wrote the initiative in an attempt to transfer control of $260 million in national tobacco settlement money from county coffers to seven area private hospitals. “It was outrageous for the supervisors not to let him put this to a vote.”

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh heard arguments for and against letting County Clerk Richard Dean begin the paperwork for the initiative, should it be declared legal.

County supervisors say the measure is illegal and refused to put it on the ballot. They sued Community Memorial, contending the initiative is an unconstitutional grab of public money. Community Memorial responded with its own lawsuit, trying to force the county to put the measure on the ballot.

The private hospitals, led by Community Memorial, say they want the funds to help offset spending on indigent and uninsured patients. They claim the county will use the estimated $10 million a year over the next 25 years to shore up its mismanaged budget and not on health care. But the Board of Supervisors has already agreed to use the money for health programs.

Dean, who insists he is neutral, has been caught in the middle. He says the county can’t legally keep the measure off the ballot. His attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued in court Friday that if Dean didn’t begin soliciting arguments for and against the measure soon he would be far behind his election schedule. The arguments are placed on sample ballots, which are usually mailed out 35 to 40 days before an election. Dean says Aug. 11 is the deadline to get initiatives on the ballot.

Assistant County Counsel William Moritz told Walsh it would be unwise to begin that process before a judge has ruled on the measure’s legality.

But Walsh sided with Dean.

“If the county prevails in this suit can this all be removed [from the ballot]?” the judge asked.

“Very easily,” replied Hertz, who noted that an asterisk will appear on the solicitations, warning people that the measure may not be on the ballot.

Walsh will decide whether the initiative goes on the ballot after hearing arguments July 24. He said Friday’s decision did not reflect his position on the initiative.

The county’s attorney seemed unfazed by the outcome.

“This is not a ruling on the merits of the initiative,” Moritz said. “We don’t see the ruling as particularly significant.”

Afterward, Dean said concern by some county officials that he is wasting taxpayer money by preparing ballot arguments that might not be used is uncalled-for. The price would be well under $1,000, he said.

Supervisor Frank Schillo says it’s still too much.

“It’s still taxpayer money,” Schillo said. “The next time he says he needs some money, I’m not going to be sympathetic.”

Also on Friday, attorneys for the county filed a petition with Ventura County Superior Court outlining why they believe the tobacco fund initiative is illegal.

They argue the measure would set a precedent that could destroy fiscal management of local government, violate state budget laws by circumventing the Board of Supervisors’ powers to review and approve budgets and give away millions of dollars in public money to private institutions.

“The initiative is a clever scheme by special interests to abscond with the tobacco settlement funds,” the petition says.

It ridicules the notion that the private hospitals will use the money to pay for health care programs and the uninsured. Instead, the county argues, the hospitals will use the money to pay off bad debt.

The brief points out that the initiative authors did not include any sort of requirement that they use the funds to pay for charity cases--only that they “meet the needs” of patients.

“Thus, acute care hospitals could use the tobacco settlement funds to double the salaries of administrators or invest for further profit,” the petition said.

It concludes by urging the court to reject the initiative, because it would defraud the public and disrupt government “all to the advantage of special interests.”

Barnhill said the arguments of the private hospitals were made in a petition filed last week.

“I think our comments should stand at that,” he said. “We are confident a judge will agree with us and the voters will agree in November.”