5th District Race for Supervisor Off to an Early Start : Campaign: Prospective candidates cite disclosures involving county spending in hopes of unseating Mike Antonovich. But they face a well-financed incumbent.

By AMY PYLE

Feb. 7, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

The campaign to represent the 5th Supervisorial District of Los Angeles County does not officially begin until filing opens Monday, but already hopeful candidates are lining up to challenge incumbent Mike Antonovich on June 2.

As in past years, the candidates face a well-financed opponent: Campaign disclosure statements filed this week show Antonovich had nearly $826,000 on hand at the end of December.

But the three prospective candidates and their representatives say they intend to capitalize on voter anger over recent disclosures involving county spending practices--many of them unearthed by Antonovich’s chief foe on the board, Supervisor Gloria Molina. All three said they would join Molina’s quest for the resignation of the county’s top administrator, Richard Dixon.

“Here we are, everybody’s struggling in a recession, and they are redecorating their offices, having $700 lunches and giving themselves raises--it’s outrageous!” said Lynne Plambeck, temporary chairwoman of the Take Back the Fifth Coalition.

As redrawn by the courts in 1990, the vast 5th District stretches from the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys, across the top of the San Fernando Valley and into the San Gabriel Valley.

A similar anti-Antonovich coalition, featuring some of the same players, was unsuccessful in attempts to unseat Antonovich in 1988, although it did force him into a runoff.

Antonovich said Thursday he remains confident that his record will overcome any voter discontent. He defended the county’s spending practices overall and said that he, in particular, has pushed for fiscal conservatism.

“I believe people are able to separate fact from fiction,” Antonovich said. “I’ve been an innovator in cutting costs. For instance, I’ve been one of the few county supervisors to raise the issue of the cost of illegal aliens in our health-care service.”

Other cost-cutting programs cited by Antonovich included a traffic light synchronization program that he shepherded and his support for contracting with private companies to furnish county services such as the management of county airports.

Employing the same tactics used in 1988, the Take Back the Fifth Coalition is trying to find a bevy of candidates to draw votes away from Antonovich--”one in every little town,” according to Plambeck.

So far, three candidates have said they want to run for the seat:

* Pasadena City Councilman William Paparian, also a personal injury lawyer, who was among those who demanded that alleged “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” be blocked from providing security for the Rose Parade.

* Glendale consumer attorney and feminist activist Margalo Ashley-Farrand, who has been involved in numerous state and national political campaigns but has never run for office.

* Jim Mihalka, a paramedic from Glendora who ran unsuccessful campaigns in the 1st District in 1990 against both Molina and supervisorial aide Sarah Flores. Flores’ victory in the spring, 1990, primary was negated by a court-ordered redistricting later that year.

But Antonovich’s two top opponents in 1988 appear to be out of the running this year: new boundaries leave former Supervisor Baxter Ward’s residence outside the 5th District and former firefighter and environmentalist Don Wallace now works for Supervisor Ed Edelman as his west San Fernando Valley deputy.

Plambeck concedes that the Take Back the Fifth Coalition was “looking for a big name that would really pull them in,” but could not interest any “due to the enormity of” Antonovich’s campaign funds.

The 1991 campaign disclosure statements for Antonovich, filed with the county registrar-recorder earlier this week, indicate that he had $15,293 left over from his 1988 campaign, for which he raised more than $2.2 million. With the money he has raised since, he had $825,927 as of Dec. 31.

As has been the case in past years, at least a quarter of Antonovich’s funds came from development and real estate interests. The top 20 contributors included two large Santa Clarita developers, Newhall Land & Farming Co. and Dale Poe Development Corp., and Baldwin Builders, which received approval from supervisors last year for a large residential project in Calabasas.

Other large contributors included waste disposal companies, investment companies, and attorneys and lobbyists who represent developers.

Those considering running against Antonovich this year said they believe his financial prowess could backfire because it relies so heavily on development interests.

“I think that will turn out to be his greatest vulnerability,” Paparian said.

But Antonovich said even some of those whose projects he has opposed gave him money. The Alexander Haagen Co. Inc., for instance, gave Antonovich $4,350 even though he voted against locating a county courthouse on land Haagen controls in Chatsworth. Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc. gave him $2,360, even though he opposed the expansion of the company’s Sunshine Canyon landfill above Granada Hills.

Those individuals know they cannot buy his vote, Antonovich said, but instead are “supporting my philosophy.”

Top 20 Contributors The following is a list of the Top 20 contributors to Supervisor Mike Antonovich in 1991:

Hillside Rubbish Co., Agoura Hills: $6,890

Castaic Brick, Castaic: $6,350

Dale Poe Development Corp., Agoura Hills: $6,350

Lewis, Jenkins & Associates, Inc., Anaheim: $6,350

Los Angeles County Fire Fighters No. 1014: $6,350

Los Angeles County Probation Officers, Local 685: $6,350

Monteleone & McCrory, Universal City: $6,350

Newhall Land & Farming Co., Valencia: $6,350

Baldwin Builders Inc., Irvine: $5,350

Malibu Canyon Continental, Woodland Hills: $5,350