Rip-Off or Misunderstanding? Ex-Chancellor on Trial

The embezzlement, fraud and tax evasion trial of former UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Robert Huttenback and his wife, Freda, got under way here this week with the prosecution charging that Huttenback “ripped off the university” and a defense lawyer describing the alleged embezzlement as “a misunderstanding.”

The prosecution charges that the Huttenbacks illegally spent about $200,000 in university funds for improvements on their home and for personal use. The couple is also charged with filing a fraudulent insurance claim for $8,000 by falsely claiming a theft of antique silver. Each defendant faces up to eight years in prison.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Darryl Perlin contended in his opening statement that the former chancellor and his wife “ripped off the university.” When the Huttenbacks purchased a home in Santa Barbara after spending a year at the on-campus chancellor’s residence and determining it was unsuitable, they incorrectly assumed that the UC administration would take over much of the financial burden, Perlin said.

“The reason Robert and Freda Huttenback spent all that money is because they felt they had been cheated by the university,” Perlin said. “And that entitled them to rip off the university.”

Perlin said the Huttenbacks spent $171,543 of university funds on renovation and repairs of their personal residence from 1983 to 1986 and an additional $28,115 for personal items.

But defense attorney Anthony Murray of Los Angeles, who represents the former chancellor, said that while the Huttenbacks “could have been more careful,” they should not be subjected to embezzlement charges. Murray pointed to a June, 1986, University of California audit that concluded that there was “no willful intent to deceive or to cover up on anyone’s part.”

That audit determined that Huttenback “inappropriately” spent university funds for personal household expenses. Huttenback agreed to repay $174,000 with a combination of cash and additions to his mortgage, which the university held. Huttenback resigned the following month.

“The university’s case . . . points toward a misunderstanding, a difference of opinion that was resolved among people acting in good faith,” Murray said.

Murray said Huttenback believed the university funds spent on the house were justified because he frequently used the home for university purposes, such as entertaining potential donors and recruiting faculty.

Freda Huttenback is represented by Los Angeles attorney Douglas Dalton.

Referring to the insurance claim, Murray said the Huttenbacks were victimized by a spiteful housekeeper and never deceived their insurance company and the government.

Both attorneys referred to Holger Chris Ferdinandson, former manager of the university’s buildings and grounds division, who authorized much of the work on the Huttenback’s home.

Ferdinandson, who will testify as a prosecution witness, was convicted last year of three counts of embezzlement for making kickback arrangements with contractors working on his own house and also of charging some of the work to the university. He is serving a sentence of four years, four months in state prison.

Perlin said Ferdinandson permitted improper work on the Huttenback home because “you just don’t cross the chancellor and his wife.”

Murray contended that Ferdinandson grossly overcharged the contractors for work done at the Huttenback home and either collected the difference or had additional work done at his ownhome.

Perlin completed his opening statement Wednesday. Murray made his Thursday. The trial was moved to Santa Maria on a change of venue due to pretrial publicity in Santa Barbara.