D.A. Will Not Prosecute O.C. Commissioner

Orange County Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth will not face prosecution for voting on matters affecting a major development company that provided him with golfing privileges, meals and other gifts, an official in the district attorney’s office said Monday.

Because Leavenworth recently amended a state-required disclosure form, reducing the estimated value of gifts he received in 1987 from the Mission Viejo Co., Assistant Dist. Atty. John D. Conley announced in a letter to the commissioner:

“We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to merit the filing of criminal charges in respect to your votes.”

Conley noted, however, that the decision not to file charges has no bearing on a civil investigation of Leavenworth being conducted by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the chief interpreter and enforcer of state conflict-of-interest law.

In an interview, Conley said prosecutors will not make any recommendation to the FPPC. He said he cited the FPPC’s investigation in his letter to the commissioner because he “didn’t want to lull Mr. Leavenworth into thinking his problems are over.”

The Times reported in August that Leavenworth accepted $365 worth of golf privileges, meals and theater and sports tickets from the Mission Viejo Co. during 1987. He also voted 22 times in 1987 and 1988 on matters affecting the developer. Records show that Leavenworth received $1,207 worth of such gifts from 1984 through 1989.

State law prohibits officials from participating in decisions affecting a gift giver if the value of those gifts is $250 or more.

If the FPPC finds that Leavenworth breached the law, the agency could levy a maximum fine of $2,000 per violation.

Leavenworth, reached at his home in Anaheim, declined to discuss the district attorney’s decision or the status of the FPPC inquiry.

“I don’t have any comment,” he said.

Following The Times’ report, Leavenworth amended his economic-disclosure statement for 1987, reducing from $365 to $242.50 the value of the gifts given to him by the Mission Viejo Co. Prosecutor Conley discussed his office’s view of Leavenworth’s amended statement in the letter, dated Monday:

“When one looks very carefully at the cumulative value of gifts from the Mission Viejo Co. which you had received by the date of each vote (affecting the company), it is apparent that you violated the conflict-of-interest law a number of times, based on your original estimates of the value of these gifts.”

Conley noted, however, the gift revaluations made by Leavenworth and said that those new calculations led to the conclusion that “insufficient evidence” exists to bring criminal charges.

“We cannot say that the valuations of gifts from the Mission Viejo Co. which are listed on your amended Statement of Economic Interests for 1987 are unreasonable estimates,” Conley wrote.

Leavenworth, in submitting the new values for his gifts on Aug. 17, said he had overstated the worth of golf privileges and meals, erring “on the high side.” The commissioner explained his revaluations of the theater and sports tickets by saying that he had unnecessarily included tickets used by his wife.

Conley, citing an FPPC regulation, told Leavenworth, “You are correct that . . . gifts to a spouse are not considered gifts to a public official.”

The FPPC rule states: “Gifts given directly to members of an official’s immediate family are not gifts to the official unless used or disposed of by the official.”

Conley told The Times that his office accepted Leavenworth’s revaluations as “reasonable” and did not attempt to independently verify their accuracy. Because state law only requires officials to make a “good-faith estimate” in valuing their gifts, Conley said, he was uncertain he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Leavenworth intentionally violated the law.

The FPPC, he added, is not bound by that requirement.

“They have a different standard,” Conley said, noting that the state agency need only show that a person acted negligently. “The FPPC will decide whether he should have been more careful.”