Irvine Co.’s Gift of Trees Criticized

County officials came under fire from several citizens groups Friday for accepting 18 Christmas trees, courtesy of the Irvine Co., the largest developer in Orange County.

“I thought it was disgraceful,” said Ray Chandos, a member of the Rural Conservation Fund, one of several groups that have fought development in Orange County. “I think when the Irvine Co. showed up with those trees, the county should have said, ‘Thank you very much, but no thanks.’ It just shows the conflict of interest. Their role is to look out for the public interest, not that of the developer.”

There are no laws prohibiting public officials from accepting gifts from constituents. However, several activist groups accused the county of bad judgment for accepting the seven-foot trees for display in common areas of several county government offices.

“It just reinforces the impression that the county and the developers are all one big happy family,” said Elizabeth Brown, president of Laguna Greenbelt Inc., one of several environmental groups embroiled in disputes with the Irvine Co. over large-scale developments in Orange County. “You send them (trees) to your friends.”

At least a dozen trees were on display Friday in lobby and waiting areas at the Santa Ana offices of the Environmental Management Agency (EMA). EMA Executive Director Michael Ruane acknowledged that some of the trees had been donated by the Irvine Co., but he could not say how many or whether other county government offices had also received the trees.

“I’m not sure the trees in common areas are as detrimental as individual gifts to people with decision-making authority,” Ruane said. “But given how it is being perceived, it’s something we will avoid in the future.”

Ruane, who has headed the EMA for two weeks, said he did not know who approved receipt of the trees.

According to Irvine Co. officials, 18 trees were delivered to county government offices.

When first questioned about the trees, company spokesman Larry Thomas said they were contributed voluntarily by employees, “who thought about doing something to bring cheer to somebody.”

Later, he acknowledged that the company itself had paid for the trees, valued at more than $50 each.

For some slow-growth activists, the gifts were perceived as coming in return for “favors” done in the past. “It seems the county and the developers have what I would call an employee-employer relationship,” said Tom Rogers, president of Citizens for Sensible Growth. “This would be considered, I guess, in the realm of a Christmas bonus.”

Meanwhile, county officials said there won’t be any trees next year.

“We’ll kick in for them, I’ll kick in,” Ruane said. “Free trees just aren’t worth the kind of scrutiny that the employees have had to go through.”