An Unsavory Trend Starting to Develop : Planning Commissioners Shouldn’t Fraternize, Period

It’s nearly two weeks since the June 5 election, but one aspect of the campaign lingers like a hangover. It’s the question of whether two members of the Orange County Planning Commission--Stephen A. Nordeck and Roger D. Slates--violated conflict of interest laws by hosting a dinner at which they reportedly solicited contributions for a Republican Assembly candidate. The matter is under investigation by Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi.

But no matter how that investigation turns out, the incident highlights a broader issue: Should commissioners be fraternizing with or accepting gifts from developers under any circumstances?

Legal or not, these gifts and social meetings give the appearance that developers have a special relationship with commissioners.

In the absence of laws precluding the acceptance of anything from a developer, commissioners at least ought to do a better job of self-regulation. They should keep socializing with developers to a minimum and refuse all gifts.

State law prohibits appointed board members from soliciting campaign funds of more than $250 from individuals who have matters before them. This is the law under which the actions of Nordeck and Slates are being questioned. In addition, appointed board members must disclose gifts worth more than $50 from firms or individuals who have business before them.

Disclosure statements filed with the county registrar of voters indicate that during the last year developers regularly treated current commissioners to golf games, baseball and theater tickets, lunches, dinners and other gifts.

Two commissioners reported accepting only one gift each: Thomas W. Moody (a $50 gift certificate for a ham) and Slates (a membership to a country club valued at $350).

But commissioners Nordeck, C. Douglas Leavenworth and A. Earl Wooden reported numerous meals and/or golf games with some of the biggest-name developers in the county. By the way, anyone familiar with the high cost of playing golf these days is likely to wonder about some of the bargain prices commissioners have reported for a membership and greens fees.

But a larger point is that during the same period, no meals, golf or other gifts were reported from homeowner or environmental groups that might argue a different point of view before the commission. While these groups were free to give them, this is a practice done mostly by firms that can better afford to curry the favor of commissioners.

As a body, the five-member commission weighs the merits of development projects in unincorporated areas and makes decisions as well as recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, whose members make appointments to the commission. Increasingly, development projects are hotly debated because of traffic congestion, air pollution and other environmental problems.

While few would suggest that development come to a halt, each new project must be considered against a backdrop of growth management. This takes more than simply balancing special interests against one another. It takes objectivity that is fostered by hearing all parties out equally.

By accepting meals or golf games from developers, not to mention providing them with hours of undivided attention around the green, in the golf cart, or over the table, commissioners provide special access that goes beyond the normal channels available to others who also have a stake in the process.

It smacks of cronyism.