An unfolding state scandal

The California Board of Equalization is an obscure elected board that’s usually populated by termed-out politicians seeking a paid place to land. Its obscurity has allowed it to rack up a breathtaking list of problems under the radar. No more.

Following a state Department of Finance audit that found board officials were improperly redirecting staff and resources to their own pet projects, state Controller Betty Yee proposed stripping the board of its responsibilities for tax administration, audits and compliance.

All of this follows a November 2015 finding that the tax board mishandled $47.8 million in sales tax revenue — a misallocation of funds it still hasn’t been able to adequately explain.

Earlier this month, Gov. Jerry Brown sanctioned the board by taking away its ability to hire personnel and issue most contracts independently.

Brown is also opening an investigation into both the board’s alleged abuse of resources and alleged nepotism in its workforce. He wants state legislators to come up with statutory changes for the board by June.

“The (Department of Finance’s) report uncovered issues of inappropriate interference by the Board that undermines its ability to carry out its core mission,” Brown wrote in his April 13 letter to the board’s five members.

Hauled before the Assembly’s budget subcommittee this week to explain what was going on, the board’s executive director, David Gau, cited the potential for litigation in his refusal to answer some questions.

The subcommittee’s chair, Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, said he had no faith in the organization’s ability to play by the rules.

It’s hard to see how the board can recover from this.

Some of the board’s many critics have questioned the need for its existence altogether.

Certainly the board, which was created in 1879 to establish uniform property tax assessments, has outgrown its original mission.

Surely some of its duties — it’s responsible for collecting more than 30 tax and fee programs, including sales and property taxes — could be performed by the unelected professionals at the state Franchise Tax Board.

The answer to whether to keep the board as constituted will surely become clear as the investigations and scrutiny unfold.

What’s certain is that the board can’t be allowed to proceed as it has been. The public’s trust and tax money depend on immediate change. While state officials pry into the board’s past deeds, it should have strong, independent oversight of its present duties.