KEEPING RAISES SAFE? MEASURE TO ADD OFFICERS COULD PAD CURRENT COPS' PAY.

Byline: Troy Anderson  Staff Writer

The sales-tax increase proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot earmarked for hiring more cops and beefing up anti-terrorism preparations could pay for salary hikes and bigger pensions for current employees, according to interviews and an analysis of the ballot measure.

Unions representing Los Angeles County Sheriff's and Fire departments employees already are lobbying for salary increases of 9 percent or more over three years, as well as more generous retirement benefits that would cost the cash-strapped county $25 million to $47 million a year.

Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and a top county budget expert acknowledge that some of the $560 million that would be raised annually from Measure A could be used for raises and improved pensions.

But they insist they intend to use the money solely to improve law enforcement as they have announced: For more officers, better equipment, an improved communications system and other public safety measures.

Baca said the county auditor and an 11-member oversight committee would ensure that the funds were spent to hire 5,000 more law enforcement officers and purchase the equipment needed to cut crime in half and help prevent or prepare for a terrorist attack.

``Ninety-seven percent of the money will be going to hire more personnel and acquire the proper equipment to do the proper job,'' Baca said.

``Law enforcement agencies are so desperately in need of money that I can't imagine any police department or the Sheriff's Department not buying as many cops as possible.''

Sharon Harper, county assistant chief administrative officer, said there's nothing in the ballot language that prevents law enforcement agencies from using the funds for salary and benefit increases.

Bratton said he intends to use the funds to hire 1,260 more officers, pay more overtime to beef up patrols in the city further, and buy the vehicles, computers and equipment necessary to support the extra officers.

Still, he left open the possibility that some funds would be used to pay for salary and benefit increases.

``You have to stay competitive to get quality personnel,'' Bratton said. ``Police salaries are an investment. As we reduce crime, we provide an economic benefit to the city.

``This year, if we achieve a 20 percent crime reduction, and we're running at 15 percent now, the economic benefit to L.A. will be $1 billion. We'll have a lot fewer people going to hospital trauma centers, businesses closing because of crime, property values increasing because neighborhoods are safer and more people coming here as tourists.''

Critics dismiss the safeguards against abuses as campaign slogans, and warn that the public won't get what it's being promised.

``Once they get their hands on additional revenues, there is going to be no way to control how it's used,'' said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

``I think we'll see a few additional police officers, and we'll see big raises and bigger pension enhancements for law enforcement.''

Critics say the measure contains flaws similar to a statewide half-percent sales-tax measure passed in 1993. Proposition 172 was supposed to pay for more law enforcement officers, but elected officials over the years raided the fund for other uses.

Although Measure A includes provisions to prevent a similar occurrence - by requiring overall increases in spending for public-safety agencies - it also contains a provision that would allow the Board of Supervisors, with a two-thirds vote, to reduce law enforcement funding in the event of state or federal cuts.

Critics say the oversight committee's powers would be limited and it wouldn't have the authority to reverse spending decisions, according to the text of the ballot measure.

The oversight panel's chief duty would be reporting to the Board of Supervisors about how the funds are spent.

The supervisors would be powerless to pursue any improprieties in the use of the funds by independent cities, county officials said. The independent cities would be responsible for disciplining themselves regarding how they spend the sales-tax revenue.

``It's important to realize that people can't just willy-nilly spend this money,'' Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said.

``Yes, there is leeway for salaries and pensions. However, the spirit of the law, which the oversight committee will zero in on like a laser beam, is to put more cops on the street.''

Measure A critics say the ``tax-and-spend lobby'' is using public safety as a smoke screen for another tax increase and haven't told voters the reason why law enforcement agencies in the county have half as many officers per capita as New York is because elected officials have never made law enforcement a top funding priority.

``Measure A is not required,'' Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said. ``(State) Proposition 1A on the ballot will provide a stable source of funding for cities and counties to meet public safety needs.''

The county has more than $400 million in tobacco settlement funds in a reserve account that could be used for the health system, freeing up general fund dollars for law enforcement, Antonovich said.

Baca said the Board of Supervisors has diverted about $250 million from his budget for the health system and for other uses in recent years.

As proof, Baca cited a Sept. 28 announcement by county officials that they had suddenly found a $309 million surplus. The supervisors voted the same day to spend most of it to repair buildings and for a home health workers' raise and county employee pay raises.

``Los Angeles County general fund dollars are supposed to be used for public safety and other vital services,'' Antonovich said.

``The health programs are the responsibility of the federal and state governments. There is no way local taxes can be used to support the large number of illegal aliens using our health system.''

Troy Anderson, [phone]

troy.anderson(at)dailynews.com