The Alameda County Board of Supervisors this week lined up in opposition to a bill from an East Bay state senator designed to strengthen transparency rules that govern supervisors’ discretionary spending.
At its Tuesday meeting, the board voted unanimously to oppose Senate Bill 1193 from Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, calling it an unnecessary and politically motivated intrusion into the county’s business.
Supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley took particular offense to the proposed legislation and held a news conference prior to the vote to lambast both the bill and its author.
“Senate Bill 1193 threatens to disrupt critical funding streams that our nonprofits rely on,” Haubert said. “Senate Bill 1193 threatens the services nonprofits provide thousands of residents each day.”
Miley said he was “pissed off” by the proposal, which only applies to Alameda County, not any of the state’s other 57 counties.
“I just think it’s a direct interference with our authority,” he said. “I don’t know what Sen. Wahab is up to, but I think she picked a fight she shouldn’t have picked. She should stay in her lane, do her job in Sacramento.”
Wahab said she was surprised by the unanimous vote since two supervisors told her they support adding good governance guardrails to the board’s discretionary spending.
“The fact that they voted against the bill and the transparency effort is quite shocking,” Wahab said. “I’m also curious as to, you know, why they seem so upset about a transparency bill.”
Changes how discretionary funds are handled
SB 1193 defines discretionary funds as any money given by the board or a supervisor to “community organizations, nonprofit organizations, and private entities” and would require supervisors to approve such spending by a majority vote.
It would also require contracts to include performance metrics, a description of the public purpose for the contract and an “explanation of how the discretionary funds will serve the district whose supervisor requested the funds.”
Supervisors running for reelection would be prohibited from giving out discretionary funds within 90 days of the election and the bill would require the county to maintain an online log of the spending and a link to a webpage that describes the whistleblower complaint process.
Wahab said the supervisors’ discretionary accounts are essentially a slush fund and while the money needs a three-fourths majority vote for board approval, the grants are typically glossed over in the consent calendar with little to no discussion and it’s extremely difficult to track the spending, online or otherwise.
“It’s incredibly important to see who’s getting the money, how much are they getting, why are they getting it, how does this serve the larger public,” Wahab said.
“There should be more of a conversation to provide better services and more consistent funding than when the supervisor feels happy with their relationship with that nonprofit,” she said.
The discretionary funds are compiled by each supervisor out of their own office budget, which is used to pay for everyday operations as well as staff salaries and benefits.
Any money budgeted but not spent in one year can be rolled over into what’s known as a “Fiscal Management Reward Program.” Those program funds build up over time and supervisors typically parcel them out to nonprofit community-based organizations in their districts.
The contracts are reviewed by the county’s lawyers and auditors and, according to County Administrator Susan Muranishi, there is an ongoing reporting requirement for recipients of the funds, as well.
The rules governing how supervisors spend their discretionary funds were tightened following a scathing civil grand jury investigation about 10 years ago that found supervisors failed to adhere to good governance and accounting practices.
Playing politics?
Several nonprofit leaders spoke out against the bill at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, including Brandi Lombardi from the Livermore Valley Winegrowers Foundation, Christine Dillman of Tri-Valley Haven and Steve McCoy-Thompson of the Keystone Housing Foundation.
Supervisors also objected to the fact that SB 1193 would only apply to Alameda County and Miley threatened to challenge the bill in court should it pass.
Haubert said he thinks Wahab is pushing the rule changes as a form of political retaliation against Supervisor Elisa Marquez, who used to sit on the Hayward City Council with the senator but has endorsed one of Wahab’s opponents in the race to replace former congressman Eric Swalwell, who resigned amid several accusations of sexual assault.
Marquez endorsed former Dublin mayor and current BART Board of Directors member Melissa Hernandez, who also works as an aide in Haubert’s office.
Marquez wasn’t immediately available for comment Friday.
Both Marquez and Supervisor Lena Tam are up for reelection in June, but Tam is running unopposed.
Even if it’s passed and signed by the governor, however, SB 1193 won’t take effect until next January, so its provisions won’t impact the supervisors’ ability to provide discretionary funds prior to the June election.
Wahab said it’s not unusual for legislation to apply to just one county and pointed to a law that was recently passed to tackle similar spending issues in Orange County.
She also scoffed at the idea that she proposed the bill as some kind of political revenge.
“I think that they’re trying to have a reason to oppose a transparency bill,” she said.
