Santa Ana Councilman Accused of Forcing City Administrator Out : City Hall: D.A.’s office charges John Acosta with violating the city charter. The veteran lawmaker calls the accusation part of a ‘personal vendetta.’

The Orange County district attorney’s office has filed a misdemeanor charge against veteran Santa Ana City Councilman John Acosta, alleging that he forced the removal of a city administrator and violated a city law prohibiting the council from interfering with administrative appointments.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Wally Wade said Tuesday that Acosta violated the city charter’s separation of powers clause, which states that it is illegal for council members to “direct, request, or take part in the appointment or the removal of an officer in the administrative branch of the city government.”

“The charter is very specific,” Wade said. “One branch of the city government cannot interfere with another branch of the city government. In this case, Acosta, as a member of the legislative branch, did interfere with the executive branch.”

Acosta, who has been on the council since 1981, contended Tuesday that the charge is part of a “personal vendetta” against him. He would not elaborate.

“I don’t know the slightest thing about this charge. I suspect it’s one of these vendetta-type charges,” he said.

According to the complaint, Acosta allegedly asked city officials in January, 1989, to remove Edward Wilczak as the city’s building and safety manager. Wilczak has since left the city to work for a private company.

City Atty. Edward J. Cooper said he had asked Police Chief Paul Walters in April, 1989, to investigate whether Acosta had taken steps to remove Wilczak. Walters then referred the case to the district attorney’s office, which conducted an eight-month investigation.

“I had received rumors that he (Acosta) had violated the charter,” Cooper said. “The rumors were that Mr. Acosta made it clear to various people that he did not want Wilczak to be the building and safety manager.”

Cooper and Acosta, who owns a masonry business, have been at odds ever since the city attorney filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint in 1988 against the councilman over zoning violations at a storage yard Acosta had been using in a residential neighborhood. At the time, Acosta described those charges as being “politically motivated.”

Last October, Acosta and three other council members voted to place Cooper on a 60-day administrative leave without saying why they wanted him removed from his post. But the city attorney refused to step aside, saying that the city charter required five votes on the seven-member council to put him on administrative leave.

Cooper then wrote in a memo to the mayor’s office that Acosta may have violated the separation of powers clause by asking for a continuance in a zoning investigation and contacting police to place his friend’s towing company on a police rotation list.

After two months of legal wrangling, Acosta and his three council colleagues rescinded their decision to place Cooper on administrative leave.

Mayor Daniel H. Young, who had called for a grand jury investigation as a result of the attempt to have Cooper removed, said he could not comment on the latest criminal complaint against Acosta.

Acosta is scheduled for arraignment in Municipal Court Feb. 5. If found guilty, he could face six months in jail or be fined $600, Wade said. However, there are no provisions in the city charter that would require Acosta to step down as councilman if he is convicted.