Advertisement

Roth Inquiry Prompts Call to Ban Gifts

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

A veteran Orange County campaign reformer said Friday that allegations raised this week over Supervisor Don R. Roth’s political finances offer a dramatic illustration of the need for more regulation of political gifts.

“I think it points up a need for banning (political) gifts--period,” said activist Shirley Grindle, who is leading a campaign behind a June initiative to close loopholes in county election fund-raising restrictions. “I don’t know of any other jobs where you can expect gifts just for doing your job.”

Meanwhile, speculation has begun that an FBI inquiry involving Roth and allegations of corruption could make him politically vulnerable when his North County seat comes up for reelection in 1994. Some are even naming potential challengers if Roth, 71, decides to seek a third four-year term.

Advertisement

“With the FBI involved, it’s like the death watch,” said former Anaheim Mayor William Thom. “You can bet your life this has become a hot topic. There is blood in the water.”

The Times reported last week that Roth had failed to disclose on state-required filings that he had been hosted on three trips to Santa Catalina Island and received what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan through an unusual rental arrangement with a family of mobile home park owners.

Local and state officials are allowed to accept meals, trips and other gifts from constituents, but are required to report those exceeding set values. In some cases, the officials may have to abstain from voting on matters that affect the donors.

Roth has denied any improprieties and said he did not report the trips or his deferred rental agreement in part because he believed that the mobile home park owners--the Doughers of Laguna Beach--had never had any business before the county.

But it was learned this week that Roth joined the other four supervisors in voting last December to overturn a Planning Commission decision and approve a condominium project on land owned by the Doughers. Gerard Dougher, a close friend of Roth’s and donor to his past campaigns, was present at the supervisors’ Dec. 10 meeting, county records and tape-recordings show.

In addition, Magdy Hanna, the owner of the Newport Beach development company that is to build the condominiums, loaned Roth a Palm Springs-area vacation condominium at least five times between 1986 and 1989, according to Roth’s ex-wife, Jackie. Roth listed no such trips on his financial disclosure forms.

Advertisement

Political finance experts have told The Times that both the non-disclosure of gifts and Roth’s vote on the Dec. 10 condominium project could pose legal problems for the supervisor under the state’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and other regulations that govern the actions of elected officials.

The FBI is known to be probing Roth’s relationship with the Doughers.

But the Fair Political Practices Commission--the state agency that regulates such matters--has refused to comment. The Orange County district attorney’s office has also declined comment on the allegations, although law enforcement sources have suggested that the office may soon take over some or all of the case from federal authorities.

Roth could not be reached for comment Friday and has declined to discuss the allegations since last week.

Attorney Dana W. Reed, representing Roth in the matter, said Friday that he has been in contact with the FPPC “so that we can come to a conclusion as to whether there has been an inadvertent violation of the (Political Reform) Act. It is very confusing. We don’t know yet if there’s been a violation.”

As the allegations involving Roth surfaced throughout the week, the attention of some observers began to shift in part from the legal issues to political ones.

Thom, the former Anaheim mayor, said the Roth issue has become the prime topic of discussion among local political insiders, and he indicated that rumors of possible challengers to Roth in 1994 are already circulating.

Advertisement

Among those mentioned, Thom said, have been Anaheim Councilmen William D. Ehrle and Tom Daly, and Orange Councilman William G. Steiner.

Daly could not be reached for comment Friday.

Ehrle, when asked about being mentioned as a candidate for supervisor, said: “I would give it quite a bit of thought. I have always considered a race for the Assembly or the Senate. I would look at the supervisor’s seat as a real challenge, but we’ll have to see how this (FBI inquiry) plays out.”

But Steiner was far less anxious to consider any talk of a supervisor’s campaign. “Don Roth has been a good friend to the city of Orange . . . and this (speculation about challengers) doesn’t leave a good taste in my mouth because I think people are rushing to judgment.”

Eileen Padberg, a political consultant who has worked on several county campaigns, said that “generally, I’d say incumbents are in trouble across the country . . . and these kinds of credibility and ethics questions (in the Roth case) tend to eat away at the public’s confidence.”

Political consultant Harvey Englander, who has run Roth’s campaigns in recent years, acknowledged that the recent publicity could hurt Roth.

Englander cautioned, however, that it is “too early to determine” whether the case will mean “a mortal wound” for Roth or just a minor setback.

Advertisement

Grindle, the former county planning commissioner who helped secure passage of the county’s existing campaign finance laws in 1978, said that perhaps some local politicians should be worried by the Roth case.

She said that with the public showing increased scrutiny over the ethics of elected leaders, politicians “better be paying more attention to the wining and dining and the freebies they get.”

In an interview with the Times Orange County editorial board, Grindle also criticized Roth directly.

Based on the week’s disclosures, she charged that the Anaheim politician has maintained a “life in the fast track”--with meals and trips from constituents--even though regulation of such activity has grown stricter in recent years.

“I don’t think he appreciates that the laws have changed,” she said.

Times staff writer George Frank contributed to this report.

Advertisement