Stanton Runs Afoul of TIN CUP Limits : Baldwin Co. Vote Came After Firm’s Excess Donations

Orange County Supervisor Roger R. Stanton has notified the county counsel that he unknowingly cast a vote last July benefiting a development company that had given him campaign contributions in excess of the county’s so-called TIN CUP limits.

The TIN CUP (Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics) ordinance prohibits supervisors from voting on issues affecting contributors who have given more than $1,704 to their campaigns over a four-year period. In June, the Baldwin Co. gave Stanton $1,500, which brought its four-year total of contributions to him to $2,300.

Nonetheless, Stanton participated in a July 8 vote affecting the Baldwin Co. Stanton said earlier this week, however, that County Counsel Adrian Kuyper had told him that there was no violation of law because he was not aware that the TIN CUP limits had been exceeded.

Controversial Vote

Stanton’s vote was a controversial one at the time because it involved a dispute between slow-growth advocates and one of Orange County’s largest developers.

Sam Porter, a director of the Santa Ana Mountain Water District, discovered the June contribution from Baldwin and charged that Stanton was unfairly supporting developers.

“We’re going to press it,” Porter said. “It is biased and partial government on behalf of developers, and it is going to come to an end.”

Stanton stressed that he has not violated any laws and said that soon after he was told that the Baldwin Co.’s contribution exceeded the TIN CUP limits, he contacted both the district attorney and the county counsel.

Since discovering the problem, Stanton has abstained on another vote involving the Baldwin Co. and said he had informed the company that it had failed to notify the county registrar of voters--as it is required to do--that its donations had exceeded the TIN CUP limits.

“I have followed the law scrupulously on what I’m supposed to do,” Stanton said. “I don’t even think it’s an incident of minor stature because the county counsel says there is no violation of TIN CUP.”

James Harter, director of planning for the Baldwin Co., said the company had not notified the registrar of voters because it was unaware that its June contribution had pushed its totals past the TIN CUP limits. It has since filled out the disclosure statement required of major contributors.

‘Totally Inadvertent’

“It was totally inadvertent and it was an oversight on our part,” Harter said. “It has always been our intention to stay within any ordinance.”

Assistant Dist. Atty. Maury Evans said he received information about Stanton’s vote from Shirley Grindle, the architect of the TIN CUP law. Evans said he is reviewing the material.

Grindle said she was alerted to the case by Porter, who asked her to confirm his findings. It was Grindle who notified Stanton of the situation Aug. 18.

“I immediately checked my records and confirmed Mrs. Grindle’s information,” Stanton wrote in letters sent to both Kuyper and Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks on Sept. 11. “This was the first I knew the (TIN CUP) threshold had been exceeded.”

Stanton’s July 8 vote was made as one of two supervisors serving on the Local Agency Formation Commission, a group that determines boundaries for local districts and cities.

In a unanimous decision, the five-member commission ruled that about 1,000 acres owned by the Baldwin Co. should be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Irvine Ranch Water District. The company had complained that its present water company, the Santa Ana Mountain Water District, was attempting to stall its development by not providing adequate water to the property.

There will be another vote by the commission to formally transfer the property to another water district, according to Richard Turner, the commission’s executive officer.

Says He’ll Abstain

Stanton said he will abstain from that vote.

The July vote was non-binding and only indicated a commission opinion that the Baldwin Co.’s Portola Hills development should be part of the Irvine Ranch Water District, Turner said.

The Baldwin property is still being served by the Santa Ana Mountain Water District, which has filed suit to prevent the transfer, Porter said.

He added that the water district board is worried that removing the Baldwin site from the Santa Ana Mountain Water District would cause a significant loss in tax revenue for the district.