Measure A sales tax was approved by voters, and proponents are celebrating their win. The five-eighths cent tax aims to maintain $330 million in annual funding for Santa Clara County’s medical system over the next 10 years, a shortfall caused by federal cuts in Medicaid.
Proponents, enjoy your success at the ballot box because now your hard work begins: keeping your promises.
One of the strongest objections to Measure A was that it was a “general” tax instead of a “special purpose” tax. The reason Measure A wasn’t a special purpose tax was that special purpose taxes require a 2/3 majority of the vote to pass. General purpose taxes only need a simple majority.
Taxpayers’ fears about county officials mismanaging money aren’t misplaced.
Some of you may remember a few years ago when Jean McCorquodale, a county grant writer and wife of former county supervisor and state senator Dan McCorquodale, was given a one-million-dollar advance to write a history of Santa Clara County for the county archives. Two years late, Jean McCorquodale delivered a cut-and-paste plagiarized from Wikipedia.
Later, other inconvenient details leaked out. The county routed the contract to McCorquodale instead of putting it out to bid, the Mercury reported, and her invoices raised questions. McCorquodale might be an historian, but she was a donor to one of the project’s big proponents: former supervisor Ken Yeager.
Now, you would think the county would demand its money back, or that indefatigable foe of civic malfeasance, DA Jeff Rosen, would be convening a grand jury to look into county procurement operations. You would be wrong.
Then-county executive Jeff Smith was “shocked” and “concerned.” Then-county counsel James Williams said that it would cost more to go to court than the county could get. When one of our staff asked County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg about the scandal, her answer was something about “moving on.”
It’s nice to be able to “move on” from flushing one million dollars of other people’s money down the toilet.
Now, you can bet taxpayers will be hopping mad if a few years from now they find out that Measure A revenue is going for, say, Sheriff’s department building renovations or boosting county pension funds. Or another writing project.
Out of respect to our taxpayers, the county needs go above and beyond and be actively accountable and transparent. We don’t want reports on the use of this money in two years. We want it quarterly, and online reports. We want active, independent oversight that happens in the light of day.
The ball is in the county’s court. Are they going to knock it out of the park or swing and miss?
We invite any of the Supervisors, as well as County Executive Williams, to tell our readers how they will guarantee that Measure A money is being used for health care and only health care.
Just email editor@svvoice.com.
Please also note that a group of taxpayer-citizens is currently appealing the denial of their Petition for a Writ of Mandate by the Santa Clara County Superior Court last September in which they had asked that court to take Measure A off the ballot. One of the grounds for their current appeal is that there was NO EMERGENCY — as is required under the California Constitution — to justify the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in calling for a SPECIAL ELECTION to decide Measure A (instead of waiting for the regular Primary Election next Spring when there will be higher turnout of voters).
Apparently, the Board claimed that a federal statute (i.e., “the Big Beautiful Bill”) gave rise to an emergency situation whereas the taxpayers contend that the passage of federal legislation by the duly elected representatives of the People cannot, as a matter of law, give rise to an emergency. The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District will soon decide whether an emergency means what most people think that it means (namely, riots, wars, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, invasions, tsunamis and other major disasters) OR it means whatever a revenue-hungry Board of Supervisors says that it means.
Regarding John Haggerty’s comment on the emergency justifying voting on Measure A in a special election rather than in a regularly scheduled election, circumstances due to the “Big Beautiful Bill” are at least as plausible an emergency as those the Trump administration has used to justify many of its executive orders. The taking away of basic necessities from substantial numbers of people could lead to riots or civil war. Shouldn’t local government be able to try to prevent this? Or is increasing repression the only thing they are allowed to do to try to prevent riots?