TIN CUP Not Violated : Wieder Vote on Irvine Co. Project Gets D.A. Blessing

Orange County Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder’s vote last month on a controversial development agreement involving an Irvine Co. project did not violate the county’s campaign financing ordinance, the office of Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks has decided.

In a statement released Wednesday, the district attorney’s office also agreed with the Irvine Co. that a company-sponsored political action committee was not legally obligated to report to the county a $2,500 contribution it made to Wieder’s 42nd Congressional District campaign.

Shirley Grindle, author of the county’s campaign financing ordinance, filed a complaint with the district attorney last month contending that the ordinance had been violated when Wieder cast votes affecting the Irvine Co. after receiving the $2,500 contribution.

The ordinance, known as TIN CUP (Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics), prohibits a supervisor from voting on matters that involve major campaign contributors--currently defined as any donor giving more than $1,739 to a supervisor’s campaign during a four-year period.

The vote in question was the 3-2 approval of a development agreement protecting the Irvine Co.’s plans to build the Laguna Laurel project in Laguna Canyon.

Both the Irvine Co. and Wieder said Wednesday that they were pleased that the district attorney’s decision had confirmed their compliance with the law.

But Grindle said in a written statement that the spirit of the ordinance had been subverted.

The district attorney’s office issued no decision on a separate complaint by Grindle, alleging that officers of the Baldwin Co., an Irvine-based development firm, violated the TIN CUP ordinance by not reporting to the county a total of $4,000 in contributions to the Wieder campaign.

Grindle, who led the drive 11 years ago to get the TIN CUP ordinance on the books and who has monitored compliance ever since, is out of the country but apparently knew what the decision would be when she left last week on a long-planned vacation.

” . . . The district attorney’s office has concluded that no legal violations occurred,” she said in a written statement prepared before she left, “but there should be little doubt that the spirit and intent of the TIN CUP ordinance has been violated.”

The statement, which was read to reporters by Roe Gruber, a friend of Grindle, said Grindle would work with the district attorney’s office to “determine what steps we may take to prevent a reoccurrence of this. . . . “

Grindle acknowledged last week that there might be weaknesses in the ordinance.

March 10 Contribution

She had contended that the Irvine Co. became one of Wieder’s major campaign contributors on March 10, when the Irvine Co. Employees Political Action Committee made its $2,500 contribution to Wieder’s campaign for the Republican nomination in the race to replace Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach).

That, Grindle argued, was because the committee, called ICEPAC, was made up largely of senior Irvine Co. officers and therefore was indistinguishable from the Irvine Co.

Therefore, Grindle said, Wieder should have abstained from voting on the Laguna Laurel agreement and all other Irvine Co. projects. Grindle also contended that ICEPAC violated the TIN CUP ordinance by ignoring a requirement that it report its contribution within 30 days to the county registrar of voters.

However, the district attorney’s office decided that, while ICEPAC must be considered a major contributor to Wieder’s campaign, the TIN CUP reporting requirement is preempted by federal law governing the operation of ICEPAC as federal political action committee.

As for the contention that ICEPAC is indistinguishable from the Irvine Co., the district attorney’s statement said the TIN CUP ordinance, “as presently worded, does not set forth a sufficient basis to add the Irvine Co. to the list of major campaign contributors to Supervisor Wieder.”

Wieder’s Reaction

“In reaching this conclusion,” the statement said, “the district attorney’s office considered the absence of language in TIN CUP addressing the relationship between a federal PAC, such as ICEPAC, and its connected organization, the Irvine Co.”

Wieder said Wednesday that her campaign counsel had checked on the effect of the ICEPAC contribution before it was accepted and had determined that the money would not put her in the position of violating the TIN CUP ordinance.

“I had tried to be so careful to follow the letter of the law,” Wieder said. “It is so hard to have these allegations impugn your motives.”

A statement released by the Irvine Co. repeated that theme.

“It was both distasteful and unfortunate to be subjected to widely publicized accusations and suggestions of impropriety by those who wanted the district attorney to apply their version of what the law should be, rather than what it is,” the statement said.

The Irvine Co. statement referred to an advisory opinion issued this month by the Federal Elections Commission on another matter. That opinion notes that, at least in the case under discussion, federal laws “supersede and preempt” local laws.

Assistant Dist. Atty. Maurice L. Evans referred to a portion of his office’s written statement when asked if Wieder’s campaign is totally exempt from the TIN CUP ordinance because she is seeking federal office.

Complaint Under Review

“In our opinion, federal law governing federal election campaigns does not restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to set forth standards of conduct in office for locally elected officials,” the statement said.

Grindle’s complaint involving the Baldwin Co., said Evans, is still under review. He did not indicate when it would be resolved.

Wieder, who voted on the Baldwin Co.’s Portola Hills development agreement after she received a total of $4,000 from James and Alfred Baldwin and their wives, said she will refrain from voting on Baldwin Co. matters until the issue is resolved.

A Baldwin Co. representative has said the contribution does not make the Baldwin Co. a major contributor to Wieder’s campaign because each of the four Baldwins gave $1,000 as separate individuals.