Reviewing the Best Candidates

* Regarding, “The Choice for Sheriff” (editorial, May 17): The Times missed the mark by a millennium due to the failure to give the proper weight to the very important character issues:

Loyalty: It appears that Paul Walters abandoned his friend Mike Carona for selfish ambition and did not have the fortitude to tell him. If friends cannot trust someone the voters cannot trust them.

Courage: Mike Carona had the courage to challenge the invincible incumbent; his opponent apparently lacked that courage. It will take a man of courage to implement change in the Sheriff’s Department.

Integrity: Without loyalty and courage, there is no integrity.

Marshal Mike Carona has earned the respect and endorsement of citizens and leaders at the city, county and state level of government. His broad base of support transcends political, ethnic and gender lines by virtue of being the brightest leader to come on the scene in a very long time. Marshal Carona is the man with the 10-point workable plan to change a department that must change. Paul Walters claims to be an agent of change and voices opposition to expansion of the James A. Musick Branch Jail but has not shared his plan to institute change or prevent the wasteful jail expansion.

MARCEL J. FERNANDEZ

Lake Forest

* In recent weeks Paul Walters, the police chief of Santa Ana, has boasted that his city is the “safest in America.”

What he has failed to tell us is that Santa Ana is considered safe only when compared to the other cities like it in America (Chicago, Detroit and New York). Walters (a candidate for sheriff) also takes great pride in telling us that crime in Santa Ana “has dropped by 50% in the last six years.” Again he fails to mention that crime in all of Orange County has dropped by an average of 52% during that period.

So in reality, in the last six years, violent crime in Santa Ana has decreased less than in the average Orange County city. According to a recent national study the “safest city” in Orange County is Irvine.

K. THOMAS

Placentia

* It is refreshing to see The Times’ endorsement of Paul Walters in the Orange County sheriff race. The reasoning was completely in line with the reason law enforcement overwhelmingly supports Walters. He is the only candidate with the proven leadership ability and experience to qualify for the position. Experience is and should be the central issue in this campaign. Mike Carona may be educated, he may be a polished politician, but he does not have the proven track record in law enforcement that Walters has for the office of sheriff.

WILLIAM J. HUNT

Laguna Hills

* I applaud your analysis of the two candidates for the Orange County sheriff. While Mike Carona has the backing of many powerful people, the overwhelming majority of Orange County deputy sheriffs support and endorse Paul Walters. The support he has does not hinge on the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs telling them to support him. It hinges on what Walters will bring to the Sheriff’s Department and what Mike Carona will not.

When comparing the experience and qualifications of Walters (i.e. managing criminal investigations, SWAT, the traffic office, uniformed patrol, crime lab, etc.) versus Corona’s experience and qualification (i.e.: court bailiff, misdemeanor warrant service and civil evictions), the deputies’ choice to back a candidate is clear.

The citizens of Orange County demand an experienced, qualified and innovative candidate for sheriff to guide the Sheriff’s Department into the 21st century. A candidate with a nationally recognized record of innovation in crime prevention and community-oriented policing.

KEVIN JAMES WHITE

Rancho Santa Margarita

* I want to thank you for your coverage of the auditor-controller’s race. To many, this is a “down ballot” race, However, the bankruptcy clearly established that this position plays an integral role in ensuring the fiscal integrity of county government.

Unfortunately, your coverage on May 17 confused the elected office of auditor-controller with the Board of Supervisors’ appointed office of internal auditor. The statutory audit responsibilities of the auditor’s office require both the audits of bills before they are paid as well as certain responsibilities for auditing the county and special districts after the checks have been issued. In essence, the auditor is responsible for ensuring that taxpayers’ funds are spent only for authorized and legal purposes, and that once spent, the expenditures are appropriately recorded and reported. The auditor also has statutory responsibility for performing “cash counts” and reconciliations of the county treasury. In addition, there are many controllership functions that include computation of the property tax roll and the maintenance and operation of all the county’s financial systems. The auditor-controller’s office employs 367 accountants and other staff to perform these duties.

The Board of Supervisors too has statutory audit responsibilities. Specifically, the board is required to biennially “examine and audit, or cause to be audited, the financial account and record of all officers having responsibility for the care, management, collection, or disbursement of money belonging to the county. . . .” Two years ago, the board established the Internal Audit Department to perform this function. I lead this effort with a staff of 22 professional auditors.

Prior to the bankruptcy, the board had delegated its internal audit responsibilities to the auditor-controller. After the bankruptcy, the board pulled back its internal audit responsibilities and hired me to establish the department. At the same time, the auditor-controller agreed to contract with the Internal Audit Department to perform its required internal audits including the treasury cash counts.

It is important not to leave the reader with the impression that the department is small and only has post-audit responsibilities. The office is highly technical and has varied accounting and auditing responsibilities.

DAVID SUNDSTROM

Orange

* Your article on May 17 on my candidacy for the Orange County Board of Education seat allowed the incumbent to get away with a false rationalization. Elizabeth Parker justifies her recklessness in losing millions of dollars on Bob Citron’s investment scheme with the bizarre claim that the law somehow required her to give Citron the money and that, rather than criticize her, I should “learn the laws of the land.” She is wrong. On April 21, 1994, she voted to borrow more than $42 million to risk on Citron’s big gamble. Absolutely no law, no moral obligation and no principle of sound fiscal management required her to borrow this money in the first place.

Both incumbents running for reelection to the Board of Education are guilty of contributing to Citron’s delinquency and are both well into their second decade in the same office. The challengers to these incumbents are just conservative parents fed up with education fads in the classroom and irresponsibility in the boardroom. And how sad that The Times has again endorsed the liberal status quo.

DONALD P. WAGNER

Irvine

* There is good reason for certain elected offices to be “nonpartisan”: offices such as the county supervisors, the sheriff, and especially for those who want to be on the county Board of Education.

Endorsements by elected officials well known to be members of a certain political party have no place in these elections. Such endorsements very likely bring political money to races which should be untainted by partisan concerns.

If the candidates are unable to attract votes based on their own ideas and experience, relying instead on partisan political endorsements and political money, they will not have my vote. Candidates for nonpartisan offices need to retain their independence. Thanks to The Times for its excellent coverage of these local races.

DOROTHY A. YOUNG

Costa Mesa