L.A. County Supervisors Rack Up $322,996 in Gifts Over Six Years

Since 1981, Los Angeles County supervisors have received a cornucopia of gifts, everything from an ashtray from deposed Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos to free trips to South Africa, a Times study shows.

Liquor by the case, color television sets, cameras, guns, clothing and ceiling fans were included in the bounty--many from people doing business with the county--along with complimentary admission to concerts, plays, amusement parks, movies and sporting events at home and abroad.

In all, gifts to the five supervisors totaled $322,996, according to annual reports filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission. Much of that total, which includes gifts to the supervisors’ deputies, is from people or businesses doing business with the county. At the same time, a major portion appears to be merely good-will gestures from longtime supporters or friends.

Supervisor Pete Schabarum tops his colleagues in the number and value of gifts, with $76,361 worth. He is followed by Ed Edelman ($63,544), Mike Antonovich ($47,253), Deane Dana ($45,358) and Kenneth Hahn ($21,342).

Not included in the $322,996 gift total are perhaps hundreds of gifts valued at less than $50 each that do not have to be reported. Further skewing the total is whether supervisors choose to accept free trips, for example, or finance them from campaign funds. Hahn used campaign funds to pay for a 1982 trip to China and therefore did not report it as a gift. Similar China trips taken by Schabarum and Dana as guests of the Chinese government were reported as gifts.

Time-Honored Tradition

Lavishing presents on elected officials is, of course, a time-honored political tradition, accepted by everyone from the President on down. In California, they have been a matter of public record since 1974 when voters overwhelmingly passed the Political Reform Act. All public officials in the state--elected or appointed--must report annually all gifts or honorariums valued at $50 or more.

The Times’ examination of the supervisors’ gifts comes during an era of increasing public uneasiness about the degree to which campaign contributions and private lobbying influence government decisions. There have been recent moves in Sacramento and Washington to limit, for example, the amount of honorariums and other outside income a lawmaker can receive in light of charges that the practice has become excessive.

No such movement exists in Los Angeles County government, however. If anything, the supervisors say that evenings at the Music Center, all-expense-paid trips abroad or $2,000 checks for a noontime speech are not only a common perquisite among elected officials, but may also at times be part of their job.

A review of the annual disclosure statements reveals the names of some of the county’s most prominent individuals, powerful developers, successful businessmen and largest companies. The donor lists also include former officeholders and county officials who are now working as lobbyists, major universities and community organizations.

Among the listed givers was the owner of the Los Angeles Times, the Times Mirror Co., which provided Schabarum with tickets to two company-sponsored events in 1984 and 1985.

Other prominent gift givers were theater owner James Nederlander, former Arco chairman Robert O. Anderson, shopping center developers Alexander Haagen and Guilford Glazer, and Walter Zable of Cubic Corp.

Also on the gift-giving list was businessman W. Patrick Moriarty, who gave Schabarum a $50 Christmas wreath in 1982. Later, Moriarty was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to other politicians in an attempt to secure state legislation to legalize fireworks.

Many of the gift givers contacted by The Times declined to be interviewed, but those who did speak with a reporter said the gifts they provided were intended to show their friendship for a supervisor, not to influence him. Many added that because the supervisors have appointed them to various county commissions, they already have access and that the gift does not enhance that.

(The Fair Political Practices Commission disclosure statements studied for this article covered the calendar years 1981-1986, which correspond with the current board membership’s representation of Los Angeles County’s five supervisorial districts. Gifts and honorariums received during 1987 will be filed with the commission in April, 1988).

Four supervisors interviewed about their gift-accepting policies all discounted any quid pro quo but conceded that the public might have trouble believing that. (Hahn, convalescing at home from a recent stroke, declined to be interviewed.)

‘No Strings Attached’

“Generally, when there are no strings attached and when they’re appropriate, I accept gifts, “ Edelman said.

“I never take cash or anything like that,” Dana said.

Schabarum said he would refuse “generally, something that looks ridiculous on its face as being hard to explain. I had a guy one time give me a TV set that I thought was overgenerous, and I returned it to him.”

Asked to define a gift that was not “overgenerous,” Schabarum said, “I would say in terms of, say a Christmas gift or something of that nature in the 100-buck range, would be very nice and anything above that gets a little much.” Schabarum, according to his reports, has accepted 281 gifts, 139 of which were valued at more than $100.

Explaining, Schabarum said that if the gift came from a friend, regardless of whether he might have business with the county, he would not turn that down.

Antonovich, meanwhile, said: “If we received a questionable gift, we’d return it. But we’ve never received a questionable gift.” Asked what he might consider a questionable gift, Antonovich said, “I don’t know.” Later, Antonovich added that most of the gifts he has accepted, except for trips, have been worth less than $250, the amount established as the minimum conflict-of-interest level under the Political Reform Act.

“It’s not like someone is giving you a Rolls-Royce or a Swiss bank account,” Antonovich said.

As the supervisors pointed out, so long as they file their Fair Political Practices Commission reports, there is nothing legally improper about accepting gifts. The only stipulation is that for one full year after accepting a gift of $250 or more, a public official cannot vote on or influence most issues affecting that benefactor.

$250 Threshold

In order to avoid a potential conflict, the supervisors have tried to keep the one-year cumulative value of an individual donor’s gifts under the $250 threshold, often by simply sending enough cash back to bring the annual total to $249 or less. Thus, not only is a potential conflict of interest averted, but the supervisor is also free to vote on matters in which the gift-giver has an interest.

Under the Political Reform Act, gifts and honorariums are treated differently than are the cash contributions that politicians receive for election campaigns. While both must be reported, there is no statewide ban against an elected official voting on issues affecting a major campaign contributor. Some local jurisdictions, such as Orange County, have enacted local ordinances, however, barring an elected official from such votes for several years.

“In our system, (elected officials) really have to accept contributions. Until some other source of funds become available, there’s really no alternative. They don’t have to accept gifts,” said Daniel Lowenstein, a UCLA law professor, co-author of the Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission’s first chairman.

Lowenstein and other political reformists interviewed for this article expressed concern that gifts, even if reported, undermine the egalitarian philosophy of government and reinforce public mistrust of elected officials.

“The American Revolution wasn’t fought so that the big shots would get all the benefits of our society,” Lowenstein said.

In response, the supervisors insisted that their free trips abroad, for example, are often grueling affairs with numerous meetings, but are essential in educating them about Los Angeles County’s diverse ethnic groups and in helping promote foreign investment in the county. Furthermore, they point out, the trips cost the taxpayers nothing.

Most foreign trips have been underwritten by the host country as were, for example, the visits that Antonovich and and Schabarum made to South Africa in 1984 and 1985, respectively. But in a number of cases the offer of free travel comes from special-interest groups, such as the American Associates of Ben Gurion University, which sponsored a 1983 trip by Dana to Israel.

“Jewish people feel that all politicians (who are) not Jewish (should) go to Israel,” Dana said. He said he regarded the journey as “absolutely mandatory.”

Multiple Purposes

Some foreign trips serve multiple purposes. Antonovich in late 1983 accepted an invitation to visit West Germany to study “education, health and police” systems, a West German government spokeswoman said. Antonovich, then a prospective GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate with limited foreign affairs experience, however, let it be known that he was going to West Germany to observe the U.S. deployment of cruise missiles.

Other trips have been partly underwritten by businesses with ties to the county.

Jun Reodica, an executive with Grand Chevrolet in Glendora, helped sponsor a 1981 Schabarum trip to the Philippines. Grand Chevrolet has sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in cars to the county in recent years, although Schabarum does not vote directly on such purchases. Schabarum said he knew Reodica as a successful businessman and a prominent member of his district’s Filipino community, but did not know that he had sold cars to the county.

The year after Schabarum’s trip, then-Philippine President Marcos sent the supervisor and his wife an ashtray and a shell purse valued at $100.

In addition to the trips to South Africa, West Germany, Israel and the Philippines, supervisors have also taken free trips to Greece, England, Taiwan, China, Japan and Egypt.

Many of the free tickets that supervisors receive reach them unsolicited and automatically. Under its contract with the county, for example, each year the Music Center Operating Co., which leases out time in the various county-owned Music Center facilities, sets aside tickets for the supervisors. Supervisors also receive complimentary tickets to sporting events, which one reform advocate, at least, finds particularly irksome.

Walter Zelman, executive director of California Common Cause, said that just because they are elected officials is no reason why free passes should be handed out.

“Why should supervisors take free tickets from the Dodgers?” Zelman asked. “The rest of us pay for our own damn tickets.”

‘Doesn’t Compromise Me’

“I don’t necessarily agree with him on that,” Edelman said in response. “We make use of our sporting event tickets to give to people. It doesn’t compromise me.”

The supervisors argue that they simply would not attend many of the events if they had to pay for them and that the county benefits. Dana added that since the Music Center is county-owned, he feels that tickets to performances there enable him to see whether the facilities are being operated properly.

Presumably, the supervisors could pay their own admission to many of the events they attend. They receive annual salaries of $81,505 and in the case of all but Hahn they have at least some outside investment income.

Schabarum, a real estate developer, is by far the wealthiest supervisor with numerous income properties and stock holdings. He also leads his colleagues in gift income.

Schabarum has received more gifts (281, valued at $76,361), taken more trips either partially or entirely at someone else’s expense (56, valued at $50,205) and received more liquor (26 cases, valued at $1,930) than the rest of his colleagues, according to the disclosure statements.

“Maybe that suggests I’ve got a heck of a lot more friends who are of the kind that I give and take with,” said Schabarum, noting that Fair Political Practices Commission statements do not reflect gifts he may have given.

Acknowledging the possible public suspicion about his gifts, Schabarum added , “I’ve sort of thrown up my hands on the whole theory because I think the general perception by the public of their elected officials, just by the virtue that they’re elected, is that they assume us to be crooks.

“I can’t worry about that.”

Why not just refuse gifts altogether as some reformists such as Common Cause’s Zelman has suggested?

“If somebody sent me a gift and I said, ‘Sorry, I can’t accept it, but I’ll pay you for it. How much do I owe you?’ That’s a friggin’ insult that I’m not going to put myself in a position to be embarrassed about--or the giver,” Schabarum said.

“I think it would be awkward to turn gifts down and not good taste at all,” Dana agreed. Edelman and Antonovich made similar comments.

Assemblyman Refuses Gifts

But a number of reform advocates point to one lawmaker’s gift policies as evidence that presents can be turned down without serious political consequences. Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento) said in an interview that he has routinely refused gifts for the five years he has been in office, largely because of appearances. Connelly said he either returns gifts with a “gracious note” explaining his policy or, if it costs more than the gift is worth to return, he will donate it to charity. He said he also either turns down payment for speeches or signs the checks over to charity, he added.

Many donors, aware of individual supervisors’ outside interests, give accordingly. Tennis buff Edelman, for instance, has received thousands of dollars in court privileges at private tennis clubs while outdoorsman Schabarum has accepted thousands more in hunting and fishing trips with wealthy Los Angeles businessmen and developers.

Gifts sometimes materialize in seemingly casual ways.

Dana said he once mentioned to Paul Flowers, a lobbyist, that he was going hunting and Flowers bought him two rifles.

“Why he bought two guns, I don’t know,” Dana said, conceding that “I suppose it could come out that way” that his offhand comment had been a signal to Flowers that he wanted a gift.

Flowers, a former Malibu field deputy for Dana predecessors James Hayes and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, is one of Dana’s top advisers as well as campaign contributor. Since 1981, he has funneled nearly $21,000 in campaign funds to Dana.

In an interview, Flowers said that he personally likes Dana and his wife, Doris, and that is why he has given them gifts. In addition to the guns, Flowers has given Dana’s wife a color TV set.

He denied that his support is connected with his job representing clients before various government agencies, including the county. He refused to disclose which clients may have business before the county.

Flowers is among a group of 69 gift givers who also have made campaign contributions, totaling $362,135, to all or some of the five supervisors, according to a cross-check of campaign disclosure statements. But, interestingly, those who gave both gifts and campaign cash are in the minority. More than 74%, or 188, of the 257 individual gift givers have not provided campaign contributions.

Sources of Extra Income

Increasingly popular sources of extra income for elected officials, particularly on the state and federal levels, are honorariums, which in the case of the supervisors are mainly the fees for making speeches. In rising amounts and frequency, Antonovich and Edelman have accepted thousands of dollars for speaking mostly to local special-interest groups. Also recorded as honorariums was $900 paid to Edelman for writing articles, including $150 for a Times article. Because they are cash, honorariums become part of the supervisors’ taxable income; non-cash gifts are not taxed.

The supervisors are divided on the honorarium issue. Dana and Schabarum do not accept the fees; Antonovich and Edelman do accept them. Hahn has also not accepted honorariums.

“I don’t ask people for an honorarium to speak. If there’s one available and they offer it, fine. If they don’t, that’s fine too,” said Edelman, who has received $6,774 in honorariums since 1981. The largest fee, $2,000, was paid for a 1985 Edelman speech to executives of Harte-Hanks California CDM Inc., a publisher of neighborhood newspapers.

“If it were a $10,000 honorarium, I would be a little concerned (about appearances),” Edelman added. But, when asked what the maximum he would accept, Edelman said, “I don’t know.”

Antonovich, who has received the most in speaking fees, also defends the practice.

“I have close to a thousand speeches a year which I had participated in where I’m not paid any honorarium,” Antonovich said. “If a handful of groups, and that’s all you’re talking about, (pays one) and they’re reported, I don’t see where there’s a problem.

“It’s not as if I’m making a large sum of money by speaking.”

$2,000 Honorariums

Antonovich has received an honorarium of $2,000 three times for speeches to executives from the political action committee of the giant entertainment concern, MCA Inc.; the stock brokerage firm Drexel Burnham Lambert; and American Medical International Inc., which runs a nationwide chain of medical facilities including a number in Antonovich’s district. Spokesmen for all three said they routinely provide honorariums to speakers, although they added that Antonovich has been the only county supervisor who has addressed them. All three also said they are not currently doing business with the county.

Antonovich, whose former chief deputy’s husband is a broker with Drexel Burnham Lambert, has also received $10,000 in campaign contributions from the firm since 1981. He has received $12,000 in campaign funds from MCA, disclosure statements also revealed.

Dana argues against fees for speaking.

“Sometimes, out of the clear blue sky, they walk up to me with a check (after a speech), and I just turn around and sign it over to them,” said Dana, who said he has been offered two honorariums “for minor amounts of money” since he became a supervisor in late 1980. “In my particular job, I don’t think it’s really necessary or appropriate (to accept an honorarium).”

Schabarum, meanwhile, said he once received an honorarium and signed it over to his campaign treasury.

Zelman of Common Cause said honorariums are insidious by nature and should not be accepted by officeholders. Zelman is spearheading an effort in Sacramento to limit honorariums accepted by state lawmakers.

“My concern is that some people are paying honoraria because they think it will give them extra access,” Zelman said. “A lot of these people (elected officials) are not wealthy men.” The supervisors are not alone in the receipt of gifts. Their deputies, many of whom play key roles in decisions on lucrative contracts, have received $69,138 in gifts in the last six years. More than half of that total, $36,178, was received by Schabarum’s deputies.

Many of the gifts to staffers are similar to those provided their bosses, only on a smaller scale--tickets, dinners and the like. But not always. Schabarum field deputy Thomas Burton, for instance, has reported receiving free home cable TV service from United Cable over the past three years, a $786 value; over the same period, company representatives gave Schabarum three plants.

GIFTS TO SUPERVISORS

Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have received more than $250,000 in gifts and honoraria over six years, according to reports required for gifts worth more than $50.

SUPERVISOR TOTAL VALUE TRIPS LIQUOR TICKETS MISC. Pete Schabarum $76,361 $50,205 $1,930 $18,521 $5,705 Ed Edelman 63,544 12,829 0 27,937 16,004 Mike Antonovich 47,253 19,215 505 15,954 2,729 Deane Dana 45,358 24,333 1,184 16,681 3,160 Kenneth Hahn 21,342 0 590 19,015 1,737 TOTALS $253,858 $106,582 $4,209 $98,108 $29,335

SUPERVISOR HONORARIA DONORS GIFTS Pete Schabarum 0 158 281 Ed Edelman $6,774 46 133 Mike Antonovich 8,850 46 93 Deane Dana 0 51 84 Kenneth Hahn 0 26 70 TOTALS $15,624 327 661

Deputies to the supervisors often review proposals, speak to lobbyists and ultimately recommend actions. Here is how the staffs of the supervisors compare in reported gifts over the last six years:

TOTAL TO TOTAL TO DEPUTIES CHIEF DEPUTY OTHER DEPUTIES DEPUTIES AND SUPERVISOR Pete Schabarum $17,953 $18,225 $36,178 $112,539 Ed Edelman 3,284 5,751 9,035 72,579 Mike Antonovich 491 12,762 13,253 60,506 Deane Dana 1,264 5,716 6,980 52,338 Kenneth Hahn 0 3,692 3,692 25,034 TOTAL $22,992 $46,146 $69,138 $322,996