Supervisor Roth Should Resign : Times Reporting Raises Too Many Questions About How He Regards Public Office

The political portrait of Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth that has been emerging in recent months is not a pretty one. Roth clearly views public office as a way to make his own life more pleasant. But so serious have the disclosures been that the time finally has come to seriously question whether Roth ought to continue on the Board of Supervisors at all. We conclude that he should not.

There are three investigations pending--by the FBI, the Orange County district attorney’s office and the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). They have been probing whether Roth violated political disclosure or conflict-of-interest laws in his dealings with members of the Dougher family, campaign contributors who own several mobile home parks in Orange County. But regardless of the outcome of these investigations, the record uncovered by The Times in recent months is enough to make it clear that Roth considers himself first among the people he represents.

Roth’s dealings with the Doughers are not the only ones at issue. But for starters, his explanation regarding the Doughers has raised questions about his campaign ethics and cast doubt on certain other activities.

The Times disclosed in April that Gerard Dougher and his wife, Dorothy, hosted Roth on three trips to Santa Catalina Island in 1990 and 1991--none of which Roth reported as gifts on campaign spending reports as required by law. The Doughers also provided a place for Roth to live at one of their trailer parks after Roth separated from his wife in 1990. Last January, Roth said he paid the Doughers $8,500 for 17 months’ rent. But the deferred rent--which amounted to an interest-free loan--had not been reported as a loan on his economic interest statements.

The unusual rental agreement also is suspect because of inconsistencies in the date on which the lease was signed. The document is dated Aug. 15, 1990. But Gerard Dougher’s brother, Donald, whose name appears on the document with Roth’s, told The Times that he actually signed it on Jan. 2 of this year--after questions were raised about the living arrangement. Donald Dougher said he signed the agreement at the request of his brother, who told him that backdating was necessary because unnamed people “might be making trouble for Roth.” Last week, a note apparently written by Roth indicated the lease was backdated at Roth’s own request.

Roth--who since April has refused public comment about his dealings with the Doughers--had said Gerard and Dorothy Dougher were personal friends who helped him through a difficult time. He also said he was unaware of any business that the Doughers had before the Board of Supervisors. But Roth, in fact, behaved and even voted as if he knew there was an issue of great importance to the Dougher family before the board last December.

The central issue involves a request to overturn a county Planning Commission recommendation not to approve a Midway City rezoning of a Dougher-owned property. Dorothy Dougher later wrote that the purpose of the Catalina trips with Roth was to discuss the “supervisors’ meeting on rezoning” the Midway City property. Planning Commissioner Chuck McBurney--Roth’s own appointee to the commission--said Roth called him in November to find out why the rezoning had been rejected. Also, when the issue came before the board on Dec. 10, Gerard Dougher was present and was publicly named as a party to the project. All five supervisors--Roth included--voted to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.

The unreported gifts from the Doughers, the misleading lease and Roth’s less-than-candid explanation of his efforts on behalf of the Doughers’ project raise serious doubts about the way the supervisor is using his office. And there is more.

Roth also apparently collected $2,930 from the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission for expenses to a 1990 rail technology tour in Europe that he also paid for with $2,879 of his own campaign funds. This double-billing could be a violation of the state Political Reform Act of 1974. Roth hasn’t explained, but somebody--either the commission or campaign contributors--seems to have been cheated.

Indeed, a pattern of Roth’s time in office seems to be emerging of a representative who views himself as serving a constituency of one. Roth, by the way, tops the list among supervisors in terms of gifts he reported receiving from constituents last year--$2,880 in sports tickets, meals, golf outings, etc.

While none of the above alone argues for Roth’s departure, all of it taken together does. The reporting failures, the explanation that does not square with the record and the double-billing provide a series of coordinates on a portrait. When you connect the dots, you see a powerful public official who apparently regards elective office primarily as a vehicle for lifestyle enhancement.

This out-for-himself approach demeans the office that Roth holds. Orange County deserves better. It is time for Supervisor Roth to resign.