Ortiz Seeks Damages, Former Job : Acquitted Ex-Registrar Files Lawsuit Against County

Former San Diego County Registrar of Voters Ray Ortiz, who last year was acquitted on charges stemming from alleged theft of public funds, has filed a lawsuit against the county seeking more than $200,000 in damages and reinstatement to his old job.

In a suit filed in Superior Court this week by his attorney, Merle Schneidewind, Ortiz requested that the county be ordered to reimburse him $116,000 for his legal expenses, as well as the wages he lost over the past 20 months as a result of what he described as his forced resignation from his $54,000-a-year post. The suit also seeks an unspecified amount of damages from the county.

Last August, one month after his acquittal, Ortiz, who now works for a Pennsylvania election data company, asked the county to compensate him for his legal fees. However, based on the advice of County Counsel Lloyd Harmon, the Board of Supervisors rejected Ortiz’s request, setting the stage for this week’s lawsuit.

County officials verified Thursday that they have been served with a copy of the lawsuit but, because of the pending litigation, declined comment.

Ortiz, who had been registrar for seven years until he resigned in August, 1986, amid allegations that he had improperly used public funds to finance trips and other personal expenses, said in the suit that “money damages are inadequate” to compensate him for his legal ordeal because they do not allow him his “chosen vocation.”

Ortiz “suffered irreparable injury resulting from the loss of his position as Registrar of Voters, as (the) position is unique . . . and there exists no comparable position in the election field in the County of San Diego,” the suit says.

Accordingly, the suit asks that the county be ordered to reinstate Ortiz to his former position--a job now held by ConnyMcCormack, a former Dallas elections administrator who was hired to succeed Ortiz last year.

The 27 counts of grand theft, misappropriation of public funds and falsification of public records on which Ortiz was indicted but ultimately acquitted charged that he diverted thousands of dollars to himself via falsified contracts he directed a Los Angeles printing company to submit to the county.

Prosecutors argued that Ortiz, 53, stole $7,300 from the county in six transactions from 1984 to 1986, as well as an additional $4,000 from Jeffries Banknote Co., the firm that printed election data for the county.

Defense attorney Schneidewind acknowledged that Ortiz had been reimbursed by Jeffries for trips to election conferences, but he argued that there was no attempt to conceal those funds and that Ortiz’s motivation was simply to save the county money.

A crucial point of contention outlined in the suit concerns the circumstances surrounding Ortiz’s resignation. Although the county claims Ortiz’s resignation was voluntary, Ortiz contends he was “coerced to submit his written resignation” by county officials who made his “working conditions intolerable” through harassment and seizure of all his official files after the allegations surfaced in the spring of 1986.

According to the suit, the county’s conduct “entirely negated (Ortiz’s) ability to perform his function as the Registrar of Voters” by, among other things, instructing officials in the registrar’s office “not to comply with any of (his) directives and orders.”

“Further, the county . . . would not allow (Ortiz) to present any evidence in his behalf nor question his staff . . . regarding the allegations made against him,” the suit says. “The county . . . did not treat (Ortiz) in a fair and honest manner.”