Just resign

10:06 PM PDT on Thursday, July 24, 2008

Taxpayers should not have to pay to be rid of Bill Postmus. The San Bernardino County assessor no longer has the credibility or legitimacy necessary to hold public office, and he should leave without trying to snag a cushy retirement deal. The county would be enormously irresponsible to allow Postmus to rifle public coffers on his way out the door.

Postmus took a 10-week medical leave of absence from his duties on Wednesday, in the wake of a critical grand jury report about his office, reports of a continuing district attorney investigation and the arrest of a top aide on felony charges.

Just what health issue triggered the leave is not clear, though apparently the assessor might seek a disability retirement from the county.

But giving the embattled assessor the lucrative plum of a medical disability pension would be an appalling insult to taxpayers. And the step would leave a noxious ethical cloud over a county government that already has an ugly history of corruption and insider dealing.

Postmus could be eligible for more than $87,000 a year, tax-free, for a job-related disability retirement, calculated from his current pay and benefits. A non-job-related disability would pay less and be taxable, but would still amount to a considerable annual income. The assessor would have to convince a nine-member county retirement panel to grant him the disability deal, which could take more than six months.

But the timing of Postmus' medical leave gives the public and the retirement board substantial grounds for skepticism.

The assessor was already on the verge of losing his job, thanks to the revelations about his self-serving political misuse of public office. Last month, on the same day as the arrest of Postmus' assistant, a scathing grand jury report revealed that the assessor had hired unqualified people as his top assistants. And Postmus had created new executive staff positions that he packed with cronies who squandered public time and money on political activities, among other questionable dealings.

Just last week, county supervisors discussed their options for removing Postmus, then decided instead to call him to answer publicly before the board next month. A sudden health condition, announced a week before his top aide faces arraignment on charges of giving false evidence and destroying public records, seems entirely too convenient for an official in political and legal jeopardy.

Postmus could, of course, defuse suspicion by publicly explaining the reasons for his medical leave. Elected officials, especially those leaving office for legitimate health reasons, often fill voters in on their conditions. And such a step would provide welcome transparency if Postmus elects to seek a disability retirement. Cloaking that decision in confidentiality would only increase distrust of a county government already lacking in ethical credibility.

And the latest revelations about Postmus' conduct only add to a long record of ethical lapses. Postmus had close ties to the California Charter Academy, for example, a politically well-connected operation that a 2005 state audit said misused millions of public dollars.

The audit criticized Postmus for serving on two separate -- and potentially conflicting -- boards of the defunct school, even as he was accepting $25,450 in campaign donations from it. Postmus resigned those positions in 2001 when he became a county supervisor. But in 2004 he voted in favor of a $77,000 county contract with California Charter Academy, which at that time employed his father.

And Postmus' role in the long-running lawsuit with developer Colonies Partners -- a substantial campaign contributor -- also raised ethical questions. In 2005, Postmus and Supervisor Paul Biane tried to negotiate a settlement to the lawsuit without county lawyers present. The more than $77 million deal fell apart after a leaked memo showed that county attorneys found the agreement too expensive and flawed.

Postmus, Biane and Supervisor Gary Ovitt finally agreed to a $102 million settlement in 2006. The supervisors justified this huge public payout to a large campaign contributor with arguments that accepted the Colonies' disputed liability figures at face value. The county's own law firm resigned abruptly afterward; one supervisor said the lawyers found the deal unjustifiable.

That sorry litany of disregard for principled conduct shows that the assessor's own improper actions -- and nothing else -- have created the need for him to leave office. He should not give taxpayers another kick on his way out the door.

A county government with a record of graft and scandal cannot afford to tolerate such lapses without harming its own public standing. Certainly county officials cannot justify a lifetime giveaway to a 37-year-old official whose eight-year tenure with the county is covered in ethical scars.

Nor can the county remove the stain on its integrity by unconscionably rewarding misconduct with a profitable perk.