I know “a fact check on claims about County Charter reform” sounds like something you would read only if you had a newborn, no sleep, and no better options at 2 a.m.

Unfortunately for me, I currently qualify.

So I decided to write one.

In Part 1 of my very strange summer reading list, we covered the fictions floating around about reserve reform.

Today’s chapter is County Charter reform.

You may have seen the editorials and social media trolls claiming that watchdogs are not really watchdogs, creating an Ethics Commission is just a cover for a “power grab”, and voters are being “duped” or “bamboozled” by ballot language written in plain English.

But when overheated claims get repeated often enough, they can start to sound true. San Diegans deserve the plain version before they are asked to vote.

Remember: There is a reason these claims are floating around. 

For a long time, County government worked just fine for people who knew how to work the system. Decisions happened quietly. Information stayed inside the bureaucracy. And only the same people now mad about proposed reforms knew how to pull the levers. 

That system works well for insiders.

It does not work well for the public.

The Charter reforms would give elected Supervisors, and the people we represent, better tools to oversee a $9 billion County government with more than 20,000 employees — through ethics oversight, budget analysis, program auditing, public transparency, and voter accountability.

That kind of change always makes defenders of the status quo uncomfortable. 

So let’s separate fact from fiction.

Fiction: The proposed watchdog offices are not really independent.

Fact: The reforms would create watchdog offices independent from the County bureaucracy — giving the public, and the officials the public elects, stronger oversight of County operations.

The proposed Ethics Commission, Budget Analyst, and Program Auditor are meant to give the public and elected Supervisors information that does not come only from the departments being reviewed.

Supervisors are elected by the public to oversee County government. But it is hard to change a system when the system controls most of the information.

Right now, too much of County government gets to grade its own homework.

If I want to cut waste, question whether a program is working, or challenge the old way of doing business, I need unbiased facts and analysis.

An Independent Budget Analyst would evaluate County spending, tradeoffs, and budget choices.

An Independent Program Auditor would look at whether programs are actually delivering results.

An Independent Ethics Commission would move ethics oversight farther from the internal County management structure and into a public process.

Congress has the Congressional Budget Office. The San Diego City Council has an Independent Budget Analyst. San Diego County should have modern oversight tools too.

Fiction: Voters are being “duped” by a “power grab” on term limits. 

Fact: The Charter reform ballot question will say plainly that the measure would “increase term limits from two to three terms” for members of the Board of Supervisors.

This part of the proposal has gotten the most overheated commentary, so let’s keep it simple. 

Voters will be asked whether San Diego County should keep a two-term limit for Supervisors or move to a three-term limit.

The ballot question says exactly that: “increase term limits from two to three terms.”

Critics don’t like that earlier language used the phrase “set term limits.” Here’s why it did: the original proposal applied to lots of County offices with different existing rules. Supervisor term limits would have increased, while term limits for other independently elected offices — like the District Attorney and the Sheriff — would have taken a step towards being newly established. With only 75 words allowed for the ballot question, “set” was used to describe both changes at once.

The final charter amendment measure now before voters removed the proposed term-limit changes for Sheriff, District Attorney, Assessor/Recorder/Clerk, and Treasurer-Tax Collector. Once the proposal applied only to Supervisors, the ballot question was updated to use the clearest word: “increase.”

That is not hidden in fine print. That is not code. That is plain English. 

And it is not separate from the accountability reforms. It is part of the same question: how should a $9 billion County government be overseen?

If voters decide Supervisors should have the opportunity to run for one additional term, that choice would come with new tools to hold both elected officials and the bureaucracy accountable: an Ethics Commission, Budget Analyst, Program Auditor, public spending data, and clearer rules for County government.

That is the balance: more time to understand and oversee a huge County government, paired with stronger watchdogs, better information, and more public transparency.

People can support three terms or oppose three terms. They can decide whether twelve years is too long, or whether it makes sense to match the limit used for California state legislators and other large counties.

But three terms is still a term limit. It does not allow unlimited terms, which is how the County used to operate. And voters would still decide every four years whether their Supervisor deserves another term.

That is not tricking voters. That is trusting voters.

The truth: This is about building a County that works better.

Underneath all the noise, this is pretty simple.

San Diego County is responsible for services people count on every day. A government that important should be transparent, accountable, and easier for the public to understand.

People can support them or oppose these reforms. Either way, voters deserve the facts and the final say.

So yes, my summer reading list got weird.

I read the fiction. I checked the facts. And I still trust San Diegans to decide for themselves.

This newsletter may not make for great beach reading. But it is the kind of story worth finishing.