Amburgey Voting Conflicts Alleged : Government: City attorney believes councilman voted illegally on a company he does business with. Amburgey calls charge politics but welcomes probe.

Councilman Orville Amburgey appears to have violated state conflict of interest laws when he voted twice on agreements for a cable company with which his electrical firm was doing business, City Atty. Thomas Kathe said Wednesday.

The city attorney also is investigating claims by another council member that Amburgey may have violated conflict of interest laws as early as 1984, when the cable franchise was originally awarded during Amburgey’s tenure as the city’s director of communications.

Kathe said the allegations have been turned over to the Orange County district attorney’s office for further investigation.

The city attorney said there are “grounds to reasonably believe” that Amburgey, up for reelection on Tuesday, improperly voted to amend the city cable franchise with Copley Colony of Costa Mesa on June 1, 1987, and to approve a performance review on June 22, 1989.

“Since the original agreement (with Copley) was approved in 1984, Amburgey Electric is believed to have been receiving compensation from Copley Colony for ongoing electrical work to hook up elements of the cable system,” Kathe said in a report made public Wednesday.

“This type of indirect financial interest is prohibited by government code section 1090,” he said.

The government code cited by Kathe prohibits public officials from voting on matters that would benefit businesses in which they have a financial interest. Violation is a felony and, if convicted, Amburgey might be forced to vacate his council seat, Kathe said.

Amburgey has previously admitted that his firm continued to do work for Copley after his election in 1986. But on Wednesday, he declined to discuss his business ties and denied any impropriety.

“I’m really not too concerned about it and furthermore I would encourage an investigation so we can get to the bottom of this,” he said.

Amburgey said he does not remember what actions the city took with Copley on the dates in question or how he voted.

He further charged that the city attorney’s report was politically motivated and accused fellow council member Mary Hornbuckle of raising the issue because she supports an opponent in the council race.

“Doesn’t it seem highly unusual that it would surface at this point in time?” he said. “I do not exempt (the possibility) of the city attorney and Mary being in collusion.”

Hornbuckle had requested Wednesday’s report, which explained in more detail possible irregularities in city contracts. However, the irregularities were first included in a report requested in May by Councilman Ed Glasgow, who is considered an ally of Amburgey.

Kathe and Hornbuckle denied that politics played a role in the timing of the report.

“I have a feeling that Orv will try to manufacture a scenario that will put him in the best light,” said Hornbuckle. “When people are in trouble, they seek someone else to blame.”

Hornbuckle has questioned Amburgey’s actions as city communications director in 1984, when the Copley contract was awarded.

Amburgey has denied being involved in negotiations over the franchise. But Hornbuckle said Amburgey took part in several technical discussions, including providing input on electrical requirements of the franchise.

Shortly after the Copley franchise was awarded, Amburgey left city employment and began doing electrical work for the company.

“There is an indication that he is apparently benefiting from a contract that he helped to put together,” Hornbuckle said.

City Manager Allan L. Roeder confirmed Amburgey’s role and said Amburgey also advised the city on merits of a competing cable proposal at the time.

Roeder also noted that the council recently was presented with the latest Copley performance review and that Amburgey indicated that he might have a conflict of interest and removed himself from the discussion.

It is not the first time that Amburgey, a former police officer with extensive business ties in the community, has had to defend himself against allegations that he cast votes improperly.

Earlier this year he voted in favor of a building project proposed by his son, Ron Amburgey. Amburgey maintains that he did not have to abstain because he does not have any financial interest in his son’s business. On that occasion, City Atty. Kathe agreed, saying Amburgey did not violate state or city laws.

Amburgey also cast votes in support of an embattled bar, Henry and Harry’s Goat Hill Tavern, after receiving a $1,000 campaign contribution from the bar’s owners. Amburgey again maintained that he violated no laws.

The votes have dismayed many observers, including council colleagues, who voted for a city measure to tighten conflict of interest laws that will appear on Tuesday’s ballot.