Editorial:

When one of our editorial board members was a reporter, he wrote a few stories about someone convicted of a crime. The subject of those stories became hostile. Police told the reporter to be cautious. He paid to reactivate a dormant alarm system in his home.

Some of us work in jobs that carry risk. Newspaper reporters can receive threats, as do police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and others who deal with a criminal element. We accept the risks and take steps to protect our private lives from our work in the public realm.

Orange County Fairgrounds Chief Executive Steve Beazley is the latest public person to be targeted at home.

His house twice has been pelted with eggs, and once was splashed with a noxious liquid. Fliers were circulated in his neighborhood falsely accusing him of crimes.

Those acts were abhorrent, but it has yet to be proven that they were in response to the state’s controversial decision to sell the fairgrounds — something over which Beazley has no control — or if they took place about the same time that the governor ordered Sacramento to accepts bids.

The Fair Board, nevertheless, assumed a connection and agreed to spend $3,000 in public funds to outfit Beazley’s home with a security system.

But even if the vandalism was somehow connected to Beazley’s job, we disagree with the board’s 5-0 vote. That is not the best use of public funds. The board pays Beazley a salary of $143,000, far more than most police officers who are ineligible for such a perk. Beazley can afford to secure his own home.

We do not begrudge Beazley for wanting to protect his property and family, and we empathize with him because the actions taken against him were unnerving. In fairness, Beazley did not request the security system — a member of the Fair Board did — so we do not fault the executive for accepting a small gift from his employers that gives him peace of mind.

But public money should not be spent on a private residence.