Hicks Denies He Knew Campaign Consultant Was Possible Witness

When Orange County Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks hired a political consulting firm to handle his reelection, he was unaware that the firm was a potential witness in an investigation being handled by his office, Hicks said Friday.

In January, Hicks’ deputies had opened an investigation into the 1984 race of Irvine City Councilwoman Sally Anne Miller, whose campaign was run by Nelson-Padberg Communications of Costa Mesa.

Hicks said he hired the firm in March or early April.

“I wasn’t aware there was a Miller case,” Hicks said, adding that the case was handled routinely and had not been brought to his attention. “It rang no bell with me at all.”

Meanwhile, the Miller case had been assigned to investigators who were unaware that their boss had hired Nelson-Padberg to manage his reelection campaign, Assistant Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said.

After inquiries this week from a reporter, Hicks determined that Nelson-Padberg was a “potential witness” in the Miller case. Within “15 seconds” it was decided to ask the state attorney general to take over the case, to “avoid the appearance of conflict of interest,” Capizzi said.

“We don’t touch stuff that involves our office or involves me,” Hicks said. “That’s just the way we work. We should come out of this with white hats.”

The Miller case marked the second time in a week that Hicks asked the attorney general to take over an investigation because of the involvement of Nelson-Padberg.

Earlier, he asked the attorney general to take over an investigation of whether Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates committed perjury on a voter registration affidavit and candidacy papers, as alleged by a Gates’ opponent. Gates also employs the Nelson-Padberg firm as a campaign consultant.

Meanwhile, Harley D. Mayfield, head of the attorney general’s office in San Diego, said Friday that his department’s attorneys will review the Miller and Gates cases to determine whether investigations are warranted.

Miller said Friday that she had done nothing wrong in her campaign. She also suggested that the inquiry begun by the Orange County district attorney’s office may stem from a “sour grapes” complaint from Mary Ann Gaido, the incumbent she defeated in 1984.

“I was not the initiator of the complaint,” Gaido said Friday. “I’m not at liberty to say who was.”

Miller said she believed her campaign was not under investigation until she read a news account Friday that the attorney general was being asked to take the case.

Has No Proof

“It looks like Mary Ann Gaido filed a complaint against my campaign,” said Miller, although she conceded she has no proof. “That’s sour grapes.”

Capizzi declined again Friday to identify whose complaint initiated the Miller investigation or to discuss other details of the case.

Gaido said the district attorney’s office told her the investigation involved “approximately $10,000 worth of checks in question about payment for a last-minute” political mailer sent by the Miller campaign.

The mailer attacked Gaido as a liberal Democrat who “has campaigned against Republican ideals.” It was prepared by Belo, Tobe & Associates of Culver City.

Looking at Money Laundering

Gaido said that in her discussions with the district attorney’s office she “was led to believe . . . they were not interested in the campaign reporting” but instead in the possibility of money laundering.

“I presume the mailer was part of the evidence in substantiating the claim that the D.A.’s office had in that regard,” Gaido said.

Miller said Friday that she had properly reported itemized contributions to her 1984 campaign and paid off the $8,738 mailing expense over several months as she continued to collect campaign contributions.

She said Eileen Padberg, co-owner of the campaign consulting firm, had arranged for the mailing, either by paying the entire debt in advance or by being extended credit by Belo, Tobe.

‘I Always Honored My Debts’

“My contract was with Eileen,” Miller said. “Belo, Tobe is a direct-mail house, and Eileen contracts with them for all sorts of things. She billed me. I paid her.”

Miller said Padberg was willing to arrange the mailing even though at the time there were insufficient campaign funds to pay for it because “I could have paid it myself.”

“For a woman who makes $100,000 a year, $10,000 is not much of a risk,” said Miller, a real estate saleswoman. “I always honored my debts, and Eileen Padberg knows that, or I don’t think she would have entered into a contract with me to begin with.”

Lynn Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said the manner in which the mailer debt was reported in Miller’s campaign reports--an accrued expense listing both Belo, Tobe and Nelson-Padberg--”sounds like the proper way.”

Frank Tobe, a spokesman for the direct-mail firm, said Friday that “the D.A.’s office found nothing in our materials that would be of interest to you. We don’t have the time to research the stuff.”