Koll Officials Asked About Contributions : Politics: The district attorney’s office has questioned executives of development company about money given to Harriett M. Wieder’s 1990 reelection campaign.

The Orange County district attorney’s office has questioned executives of the Koll Co., a prominent development firm, about their contributions to Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder’s 1990 reelection campaign, company officials said Wednesday.

At issue is more than $5,000 in contributions made by 23 Koll Co. executives about the time that Wieder made a campaign appearance at the company’s Newport Beach headquarters last October.

“Occasionally, we have a candidate who asks, ‘Would you mind if I made a speech at your office?’ ” Koll Co. President Ray Wirta said. “If it’s a candidate that Don (Koll, founder of the Koll Co.) or I supported, I’d say sure. . . . Attendance is not mandatory; contributions are obviously not mandatory.”

The questioning of Koll Co. officials was conducted this week by an investigator from the district attorney’s office and was said to focus on whether the officials intended to circumvent state and county laws when they contributed to Wieder’s campaign.

If the company executives were reimbursed for their contributions to Wieder, they could have violated the county ordinance known as TINCUP, or the state Political Reform Act, since they would have been concealing a corporate donation.

Company officials said they were not reimbursed for their contributions and that no wrongdoing occurred. They said the contributions were made voluntarily.

Wieder said she learned of the district attorney’s inquiry Tuesday while she was participating in a meeting at the Koll Co.

“I was shocked,” she said. “I was told the D.A. wanted to ascertain whether there was any coercion, any reimbursement. If the investigation ever showed that, I would not want any part of that money, and I would return it.”

Wieder stressed, however, that she has no reason to doubt the company’s integrity. In fact, she said, company officials had showed her a document that informed employees that they were under no obligation to contribute.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade confirmed Wednesday that “we’ve conducted some interviews in regards to this matter,” but he declined to elaborate.

The contributions that sparked the district attorney’s interest were all made during the last months of 1990, when 23 Koll Co. officials donated to Wieder’s reelection campaign, adding $5,502 to her war chest as she was waging a runoff battle against Westminster City Councilwoman Joy L. Neugebauer. Wirta contributed another $1,000 in December, after Wieder had been reelected, according to the supervisor’s campaign records.

Company officers and directors may contribute as individuals to candidates for the Board of Supervisors, but those contributions count against the company’s total if the donations are made by agreement in an effort to evade TINCUP. If a company exceeds the TINCUP threshold--which stands at $1,944--it is deemed a “major campaign contributor,” and the supervisor who received the money is obliged to abstain from acting on matters affecting that company.

The Koll Co. has not been labeled a major contributor, so Wieder is free to act on matters involving it. She has not taken any such action, as the company does not have any matters pending before the county board.

The Times attempted to interview all 23 current and former Koll Co. executives listed as contributors on Wieder’s campaign disclosure reports. Five responded, and all five stressed that they had not been reimbursed for their contributions.

“I wish,” said Jack Douglas, a company construction manager who contributed $100 to Wieder on Oct. 24.

Russell North, a senior project manager with Koll Construction, also donated $100 to Wieder’s campaign on Oct. 24, after she made the speech to company employees. North said he was not reimbursed by the company for his contribution nor was he under any pressure to make it.

“I’ve worked for the Koll organization for almost 15 years, and we’ve had a number of speakers come in and talk to us,” North said. “That gives us an opportunity to give.”

Other company officials agreed. Wirta said Wieder’s appearance last October was one of two or three similar political events that the company holds annually.

Generally, the candidate will request the opportunity to speak, Wirta said. In Wieder’s case, the company provided the space and sent out invitations to its employees. Wirta estimated that between 150 and 200 employees went to listen to Wieder’s address.

“The Koll Co. has a long history of supporting those candidates who we feel contribute to the economic growth of the community,” Wirta said. “We often hold fund-raising get-togethers, where the candidate can speak and meet some of our employees.”

According to legal experts, such fund-raising events provide important opportunities for candidates to raise money, and contributions raised as a result of them are not considered donations by the company.

“If that’s the way it happened, I don’t see anything illegal about it,” said Shirley L. Grindle, a former county planning commissioner who helped write TINCUP. “But I don’t think it’s a smart thing for Koll to be doing. . . . They’re giving an unfair advantage to one candidate. If they really wanted to conduct what we call the democratic process, they’d invite all the candidates to come and speak.”

Wieder’s public disclosure statements documenting the contributions by the Koll Co. employees may have added to the questions surrounding the October contributions.

Under state law, political candidates are required to list the occupation and employer of any individual who contributes $100 or more. But in campaign disclosure statements filed on Jan. 31, 1991, Wieder’s treasurer did not include that information for many of her contributors, among them 11 who worked for the Koll Co.

Wirta, the Koll Co. president, for instance, was listed as a contributor, but his occupation and employer were not included.

Candidates often inadvertently omit a few employers or occupations from their disclosure statements, but even in cases in which contributors do not give that information themselves, a candidate’s treasurer is required to use “reasonable diligence and good faith” to get the information, according to Jay Greenwood, a spokesman for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Wieder’s treasurer, Betty Presley, said Wednesday that she sent a letter to every individual for whom she did not have an employer or occupation listed but that not all the responses had come back by Jan. 31, when she filed the statement.

“We got really busy,” Presley said. “We did send out letters, though.”

In the Jan. 31 statement, Wieder’s campaign reported a total of $51,838.62 from 119 contributors. Of those, 13 were identified as employees of the Koll Co. Their total contributions came to $3,002, with an additional $500 from Richard Ortwein, a company vice president, on Sept. 27.

Subsequently, however, Presley filed amendments to the original statement, adding the occupations and employers of contributors. The amendments listed 11 more employees of the Koll Co., some of whom are in the highest ranks of the company.

Those 11 employees contributed a total of $3,000 to Wieder’s campaign treasury, $1,000 of that after the election, according to her disclosure statement.

“It’s reasonable to wonder about that,” Greenwood of the FPPC said. “If that (information) hadn’t been there, I guess a red flag would go up in some people’s minds.”

Times staff writer Mark Landsbaum contributed to this report.

Koll Co. Employee Contributions to Harriett M. Wieder

Sept. 27, 1990-Dec. 11, 1990

Date Person Title Amount Sept. 27 Richard Ortwein Vice president $500 Oct. 15 John D. Herold* Finance manager $100 Oct. 15 James J. Summerford* Vice president, corporate $100 controller Oct. 15 Dean Trojan Vice president $200 Oct. 15 Lawrence Kellner Executive $300 Oct. 15 John Wills President, Koll Construction $500 Oct. 20 Brian McGuiness Vice president $100 Oct. 20 Darlene Shelley Senior dev. manager $300 Oct. 21 Greg Cizik* Development manager $100 Oct. 21 Greg Cole Equity investments $100 Oct. 21 Lawrence Brose Developer $300 Oct. 22 Patrick Murphy* Senior vice president, marketing $300 Oct. 23 David Mudgett Real estate dev. $100 Oct. 24 Russell North* Senior project manager $100 Oct. 24 William Rothe* Senior vice president, asset $300 management Oct. 24 Elizabeth Hallin* Vice president, human $100 resources Oct. 24 Philip Belling* Vice president, development $300 Oct. 24 Steven Layton* Vice president, development $300 Oct. 24 Walter Mountford* Real estate developer $300 Oct. 24 Jack Douglas Construction manager $100 Oct. 24 Thomas Mead Director/bus. dev. $100 Oct. 24 Stephan McArthur Real estate dev. $300 Oct. 24 Richard Ortwein Executive $502 Oct. 29 Eliot Hansen Construction mangr. $100 Dec. 11 Ray Wirta* President/chief officer $1,000 TOTAL $6,502

* Indicates that the contributor’s affiliation with Koll Co. was not originally disclosed when Wieder’s campaign filed its disclosure report on Jan. 31, 1991. In amended reports filed on Feb. 21 and March 21, 1991, Wieder’s campaign identified these contributors as employees of the Koll Co.

Source: Campaign disclosure statements filed by Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder.