In November, former Riverside County Auditor-Controller Paul Angulo lost his bid for reelection to Ben Benoit. On April 24, Angulo filed a $1.480 million claim against the county as a result of its certification of Benoit winning the election.

Angulo argues that the state requires a county auditor-controller to have “… certain experience and formal training.” He argues that Benoit is not qualified and should not have been on the ballot.

But the county points out that the ordinance, 583.1 containing these qualifications was repealed.

State Government Code section 26945 specifies the qualifications for individuals to hold the office of county auditor. The options include a degree in accounting, a CPA license, or experience as a county auditor. However, the following section, 26946, specifies, “The provisions of this article shall become effective in only those counties in which … the board of supervisors by a unanimous vote, at a regular meeting with all members present, enacts an ordinance adopting the provisions of this article. The ordinance so adopted may be repealed by the board of supervisors at any time.”

Riverside County did adopt Ordinance 583.1 in December 1997; however, Ordinance 583.2 was subsequently passed in August 2001, more than 20 years ago. This ordinance repealed 583.1.

Former board Chair Tom Mullen told his colleagues, “If this ordinance [583.2] is adopted, these enhanced qualifications for candidates will be repealed and the minimum requirement for candidates for auditor will be a registered voter in the county of Riverside.”

“… No additional action has been taken since then to increase the qualifications to run for Auditor,” county Senior Public Information Specialist Yaoska Machado wrote in September, after discussion with the Registrar of Voters Office.

Nevertheless, Angulo is asking for four years of salary at $245,000 annually and $500,000 for pension benefits, plus any attorney fees.

In his handwritten claim, Angulo repeatedly refers to Ordinance 583.2 as the basis for the requirements to be an Auditor-controller. Benoit does not have the educational accounting degrees. However, Angulo does not acknowledge the ordinance has been repealed.

“The question is do board approved ordinances matter or not? Are they to be arbitrarily applied depending upon whom the board favors? Do fair elections matter in Riverside County,” Angulo argues.

While he wrote that he has no intention of embarrassing the board, he is willing to go to trial if his claim is rejected. The basis for possible litigation, in Angulo’s opinion, is “corruption of the electoral process, gross negligence, obstruction, retaliation, and dereliction of duty.”

On May 8, the board wrote Angulo acknowledging receipt of his claim and formally rejecting it.

Besides claiming that Benoit is legally unqualified for auditor-controller, Angulo also claims Benoit has withheld legally owed travel expenses due to Angulo.

“Further, in retaliation, the new, yet unqualified auditor-controller, withheld certain lawfully approved travel costs due the complainant.”

Angulo did not respond to a request for comment about his claim.