Pay Issue Pulls Vasquez Aide Into D.A. Fray : Election: Candidate Ed Freeman says a former prosecutor improperly received $5,679, and is accused of playing politics with the issue.

A district attorney candidate has asked the state attorney general to investigate whether an Orange County prosecutor-turned-aide to Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez improperly received $5,679 in county funds by collecting an attorney’s salary while working in a lower-paying position.

Assistant Dist. Atty. Ed Freeman, who is in charge of felony trials in Orange County Superior Court, wrote the attorney general’s office a month ago saying he was concerned that former Deputy Dist. Atty. Ravinder Mehta drew about $10 an hour more than he was supposed to.

Mehta, 30, who was paid as a prosecutor for about four months although he worked full-time as an executive assistant for Vasquez, denied any impropriety and said his reputation is being sullied to give Freeman and others a campaign issue.

According to the county auditor-controller, Mehta returned the $5,769 in pay to the county in March from a deferred compensation account after the discrepancy was discovered by the district attorney’s office a few months earlier. Mehta said he knew he would have to pay back the money after he went to work for Vasquez and, in preparation for that day, saved his extra earnings.

“I am a prosecutor, and I don’t do this kind of stuff,” said Mehta, who formerly worked in Freeman’s unit. “It is a campaign issue and nothing more. Freeman is just muddying up the waters to get some publicity, which is lacking for him. . . . I don’t want to be a casualty in their war.”

Mehta’s salary as an executive assistant for Vasquez is about $43,000 a year. His pay as a prosecutor was $60,000 to $70,000 a year.

Freeman wrote to Deputy Atty. Gen. Harley Mayfield, a supervisor in the attorney general’s San Diego unit, on April 9 and requested an investigation into a possible theft of county funds. He said the district attorney’s office should not look into one of its own because it represents a conflict of interest.

“I don’t like the whole affair and how it occurred,” Freeman said. “It’s tragically unfortunate that this scenario surfaces during an election year. This is not some sort of political maneuver. This transcends any notion of that.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Rudolf Corona acknowledged receipt of Freeman’s letter and said he has begun a routine preliminary review to determine whether a criminal investigation should be opened.

“We get requests like this regularly,” Corona said. “There is no indication at this time that there is anything criminal. The county appears to have dealt with the situation, but it is really far too early to say what happened.”

In January, Deputy Dist. Atty. Tom Avdeef, a candidate for district attorney, tried to make an issue of Mehta’s salary during a news conference when he charged that Vasquez should not vote to appoint Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Michael Capizzi as district attorney. Avdeef said Vasquez had a conflict of interest because one of his staff was on the district attorney’s payroll. Mehta called the charge groundless and Vasquez voted to appoint Capizzi.

Capizzi, who is running against Freeman, Avdeef and Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. James Enright in the June election, called Freeman’s complaint part of “the silly season” and “politics as usual.” He said Freeman requested the attorney general’s help to protect himself from his own mistake.

The events in question began in April, 1989, when Mehta took a leave from his job in Vasquez’s office, which he had accepted a few months before, to handle the trial of Jose Luis Razo Jr., a former Harvard University student charged with 10 armed robbery counts.

Razo, whose case gained national media attention, was convicted of six robbery counts on June 9, and he received 10 years in prison on Aug. 25. Between Razo’s conviction and sentencing, Mehta returned to work for Vasquez and kept his hand in the case.

After Razo was convicted, Mehta said he went to the district attorney’s administrative office and was assured the paper work for his return to the Board of Supervisors, including the salary adjustment, would be taken care of. He said he told them he would handle the case through sentencing only.

But information supplied to the attorney general’s office suggests that Mehta told an administrative staff member he would handle the case through appeal--something normally handled by the state attorney general’s office.

Mehta’s time sheets show that he continued to be paid as a deputy district attorney from Aug. 25 to Dec. 8, 1989, although he was working for Vasquez. According to the district attorney’s office, the situation was discovered in December during a review of vacant positions.

Subsequently, the auditor-controller’s office was notified that Mehta’s transfer to Vasquez’s staff was effective on Dec. 8, 1989, but on Jan. 22, the district attorney’s office told the auditor-controller’s office to change his official transfer date to Aug. 28, 1989.

Mehta then notified the county treasurer’s office on March 7 to reimburse the county with funds from his deferred compensation account. “I’m glad we are finally getting this resolved,” Mehta wrote in the memorandum.

“Avdeef couldn’t do anything with it, so Freeman is doing something now,” Mehta said. “It is hogwash. They are running scared and don’t have a prayer. I don’t need to risk my career for something like this. I don’t need the money. I never benefited personally.”

Mehta blames the situation on an honest error in the district attorney’s administration and Freeman, who is ultimately responsible for the unit in which Mehta worked. He said Freeman knew about the situation and signed every one of his time sheets.

But time sheets obtained by The Times show they were signed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Jack Sullens or someone else on behalf of Freeman, who denied ever signing the records in question.

“Freeman is responsible for the time sheets,” Capizzi said. “It was pointed out that they were signed by him. It was something he knew about but did nothing until it took on what he believed were possible criminal implications.”

Freeman said questions about Mehta’s pay were handled in December by Capizzi and then-Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks, who, he added, never informed him about the situation.

“I looked into it when they tried to point the finger at me,” Freeman said. “I am still concerned about what the facts are. There are questions the attorney general must look at and answer: How were Mehta’s checks being picked up? What did he tell the administration? How was this allowed to continue so long?”

Staff writer Jim Newton contributed to this story.