Conflict of interest by Antonovich is alleged

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich may have violated a state conflict of interest law in connection with a proposed downtown football stadium and could be fined up to $5,000, a legal expert said Thursday.

Antonovich introduced a motion to oppose an effort by the NFL stadium developer, Anschutz Entertainment Group, to secure special state protection limiting environmental lawsuits against the project. At the same time, Antonovich’s wife sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from the company’s affiliate in Shanghai.

“If [Antonovich and his wife] are arguing that they are owed the money, then they are essentially arguing that they violated the law by attempting to impact a governmental decision that would have an impact on them,” said Fred Woocher, an attorney who frequently litigates conflict of interest cases.

Tony Bell, a spokesman for Antonovich, said “the supervisor has said he believes there has been no violation of any conflict of interest rules.” The supervisor has argued that his wife’s work had no relation to the stadium project.

Christine Hu Antonovich introduced AEG Business Management Consulting, a Shanghai-based company focused on developing sports venues, to officials in China in 2008, according to attorneys for both sides. Last year, she informed the AEG affiliate that she was contractually owed more than $200,000 for that work.

AEG alleged this week that the financial claim posed a conflict of interest. Antonovich defended his motion during the board meeting, but then withdrew it. Woocher said state law required him to do more.

Under state law, a county supervisor is required to recuse himself from any decision involving a personal financial interest, leave the room while it is discussed and publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict.

A financial interest, as defined under the law, includes income that has been promised to the public official or his spouse but not yet received, if there is a legally enforceable right to the promised income.

AEG filed a complaint this week with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, but the commission’s spokeswoman, Tara Stock, said a formal inquiry has not yet been initiated.

garrett.therolf@latimes.com