ELECTIONS / 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT : 5 Challengers at Forum Focus Their Attacks on Antonovich

Although all candidates seeking to unseat Supervisor Mike Antonovich have agreed not to launch negative campaigns, the agreement’s protection clearly does not extend to the incumbent--or other members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

During a Monday night forum in Pasadena attended by five of the six challengers, Antonovich--who did not attend--was everyone’s favorite punching bag.

He took hits for everything--from his pro-development policies to riding in a county bulletproof car.

Candidate Jim Mihalka, a Los Angeles city paramedic who failed twice before to win a supervisorial seat, illustrated his closing remarks with a sign board that summed up many of the criticisms.

If voters elect him June 2, Mihalka said the sign on the 5th District supervisor’s office door would read “public welcome,” instead of “the sign that’s there now,” he said, dramatically flipping his board to the other side, revealing, “Supervisor For Sale.”

Mihalka said he was referring to Antonovich’s receipt of nearly $1 million in campaign contributions, a large chunk of which came from developers and other special-interest groups.

Antonovich has repeatedly said that he is not influenced by such contributions, using as examples donations from firms he has voted against.

Antonovich also said in a recent interview that he was encouraged by the low level of public enthusiasm generated by his challengers this year.

That apparent apathy was tangible Monday night: Fewer than 40 people attended what was the only public candidates’ forum in the race to date, and the candidates themselves paid for the event to be taped and distributed to public access television channels.

After the candidates had made their opening remarks at the forum, a statement from Antonovich was read aloud.

Several candidates and audience members snickered when Antonovich was quoted as saying: “Efficiency in government continues to be among my highest priorities.”

Candidate Lynne Plambeck seized on the remark, saying that proposals to cut 19 nature parks from the proposed 1992-93 budget illustrate government inefficiency.

“The cost of running one of those parks for a year is about the cost of one armor-plated car for a supervisor,” said Plambeck, a Santa Clarita environmentalist who has been endorsed by the Democratic Party.

Antonovich has previously responded that security measures, such as the cars, are necessary because of threats made against him and other supervisors. And last year, Antonovich voted to preserve funding for the nature parks, first proposed for cuts at that time.

The five candidates, even the more conservative ones, criticized the board as a whole, sparing only Supervisor Gloria Molina.

“Thank God for her,” said candidate William Paparian, an attorney and a Pasadena city councilman.

Even a question from the audience concerning the candidates’ opinions on establishing a clothing-optional beach evoked a laundry list of perceived problems with the current Board of Supervisors.

Paparian said the beach was “something I wouldn’t oppose” and segued into a discussion of the county’s inability to stop pollution of beaches on Santa Monica Bay.

Glendale attorney Margalo Ashley-Farrand said: “When people want to have something,” such as a nude beach, “they should be able to.” She then criticized supervisors for not providing enough time for public comment during board meetings.

Plambeck said she would listen to the concerns of the neighbors of the beach before deciding, but she added, “this is a question that would never be addressed in the county of Los Angeles because parks . . . and beaches are a low priority.”

Craig Freis, who owns a religious bookstore in Glendale, never stated his position on nude beaches, instead launching into a moral metaphor of sorts: “I believe pollution isn’t so much on the beaches; it’s in the people’s minds.”

Mihalka said nude beaches would “not be high priority on my agenda . . . we need to take care of health care first.”

The candidates, when not bashing the supervisors, focused on ways to cope with an ever-leaner county budget and a foundering local economy.

Mihalka said the federal government should be forced to pay housing, health care and education costs for those granted immigration amnesty in 1986.

Paparian said government should concentrate on becoming a catalyst for businesses with the most potential, such as medical equipment manufacturers and 24-hour care for the elderly, to prepare for the “aging baby-boom generation.”

Plambeck said the $265-million boost in county pensions recently approved by the board should be rescinded and bonds held by the county could perhaps be refinanced to take advantage of lower interest rates.

Ashley-Farrand said the county should help Los Angeles become a center for environmental research and development, by backing such programs as manufacturing electric cars.

Freis said he would work toward reform of workers’ compensation rules and try to reduce the number of lawyers in existence, “except the two here,” he said, motioning to Paparian and Ashley-Farrand.