LOCAL ELECTIONS: IRVINE MAYOR : Agran and Sheridan Get Stuck in ‘Knife Fight’

In this clean, button-down city as uncluttered as an architectural model, the underside of the mayor’s race has been mired in an undercurrent of charges and countercharges, as well as requests for investigations by the district attorney.

Since the race began months ago, supporters of Mayor Larry Agran and his challenger, Councilwoman Sally Anne Sheridan, have paid for full-page newspaper ads and one-minute television spots that berate the opposition. They have also filed complaints with the district attorney and the state Fair Political Practices Commission, then notified the news media.

And, in perhaps the most serious move, members of the Sheridan camp, armed with a long list of allegations and a packet of documents, met with the district attorney and asked for an investigation of incumbent Agran.

At the least, the meeting has prompted an inquiry into whether the mayor coerced some of the city’s largest developers into giving generous political contributions to a state ballot measure that could provide $125 million for a monorail in Irvine.

The candidates say the onslaught of charges, countercharges and politically motivated smear tactics are the worst they have seen in years--the unsavory result of a high-stakes race involving two formidable council veterans.

Sheridan, whose husband, Donald, calls the contest a “political knife fight,” and Agran said they have been victimized repeatedly by lies and personal attacks as the June 5 election nears. Sheridan blames it all on the mayor. Agran blames it all on Sheridan.

“I think there is a lot of this going on,” said Agran, dismissing Sheridan’s allegations about him as a desperate attempt to undermine his campaign. “Unfortunately, it seems to be the name of the game--the spreading of falsehoods, abusing the process, and running to the D.A. with a bogus allegation, then running to the media to give it some life.”

What irritates Agran are complaints by Glen Greener, Sheridan’s campaign manager. Greener said that he and others went to the district attorney’s office in early April and requested an investigation into whether Agran had coerced developers into giving donations to Proposition 116, a state ballot measure seeking funds for rapid transit projects.

Irvine stands to gain $125 million for a proposed monorail if the measure passes and the city provides matching funds. Agran spearheaded a local fund-raising drive for the measure that garnered $250,000 to $300,000, roughly a third of the initiative’s contributions statewide.

Most of the local donations came from developers and subcontractors with projects in the Irvine Business Complex, a 2,500-acre commercial center and planned destination of the proposed monorail, according to campaign finance statements.

“I told myself that if I thought there was something improper, I’d go to the authorities,” Greener said. “Agran dismisses any criticism as either coming from extremists or politically motivated people. This is not politically motivated. I have not said anything in public until now.”

Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said he can neither confirm nor deny any investigation. But sources in the district attorney’s office and the local construction industry, who did not want to be identified, said district attorney investigators are perusing Proposition 116’s campaign disclosure statements and interviewing local contributors to the measure.

Builders, who spoke only on the condition that their names not be used, said Agran never threatened to interfere with their projects when he asked them for contributions. Others said they willingly gave money to the measure but were uncomfortable with Agran’s solicitations because they have projects pending before the Planning Commission or City Council.

Agran called the accusations “absolute, unmitigated lies. I deny categorically any such meetings or conversations. Everything I have done with respect to Proposition 116 has been extremely public. They are perpetuating an absolute fraud. All of this has to be evaluated in the following context--the election is just days away.”

The first controversies surrounding the mayoral candidates originated several months ago when Agran accused Sheridan of being backed by builders, especially the Irvine Co., a master developer that owns a third of the city’s land.

Next, Sheridan was accused of misrepresenting her education in campaign mailers and a sworn court deposition when she said she had a master’s degree from Harvard University, where she only took graduate courses. The deposition was taken in a lawsuit over a measure that city voters approved in 1988 involving appointments by the mayor to fill vacant council seats.

The district attorney’s office reviewed the allegations brought by attorney Christopher Mears, an Agran supporter, and concluded that a perjury charge was not justified. Sheridan ultimately admitted being untruthful about the master’s degree.

Just as the furor over her college degree began to subside, another Agran ally accused Sheridan of exploiting her council position by participating as a real estate agent in the sale of homes for at least 14 city officials and eight Irvine Co. executives.

An outside attorney, hired by the city to look into the complaint by Councilman Ed Dornan, concluded that Sheridan had not committed any wrongdoing but warned officials to avoid similar situations in the future.

Sheridan, 55, said Agran’s accusations about her education and real estate transactions are a deliberate attempt to destroy her “personally, professionally and politically.”

“It’s the worst we have ever seen,” Donald Sheridan said. “Agran called the tune and we came to the dance. He has gone nuts with the degree thing and the conflict-of-interest charges by Dornan. . . . This is a political knife fight and the survivor is going to be a Zen master.”

Agran said the controversies surrounding Sheridan are more factual and important than the accusations hounding him. Among them are charges that he might have violated state open-meeting laws by participating in a fund-raiser in April at the home of Councilman Dornan. Developers, two council members and a planning commissioner attended.

In newspaper ads and television commercials on Irvine’s cable station, Agran’s critics questioned whether the gathering at Dornan’s house amounted to a quorum and that public business might have been discussed.

After a review of the accusations, City Atty. Roger Grable concluded that there was no wrongdoing by Agran, Dornan and Councilman Cameron Cosgrove. According to a May 17 memo, Grable wrote that there was no official meeting because no city business was discussed and no official action resulted.

“We have revealed this whole allegation, and from the beginning it has been a lie,” Agran said. “It reminds me of the words of Mark Twain: ‘Lies can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.’ That seems to be the guiding principle of the Sheridan campaign. I think the truth is finally catching up with them in instance after instance.”

Times staff writer Wendy Paulson contributed to this story.