Roth Secretary Testifies Before Grand Jury : Inquiry: Receptionist is granted immunity but isn’t under suspicion. Two other employees may be called in probe of county supervisor.

In an unusual series of legal maneuvers, a receptionist for Supervisor Don R. Roth was granted immunity by a judge Thursday and then testified before a grand jury that is investigating her boss.

Officials said two other Roth assistants may receive the same arrangement next week as authorities seek to determine whether Roth exchanged political favors for unreported gifts from local business people.

Prosecutors say it is uncommon for a witness who is not a target of a criminal investigation to seek immunity. But the lawyer for the Roth employees said the women sought legal protection from prosecution “just to be on the cautious side,” not because they had anything to hide in discussing the workings of Roth’s office.

The attorney, James D. Riddet of Santa Ana, acknowledged that a grant of immunity can often carry the perception of wrongdoing. But he said: “That stigma is inappropriate in this situation.”

Roth has predicted that he will be exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, prominent Orange County political consultant Harvey Englander, who has run four Roth campaigns for both supervisor and mayor of Anaheim since 1982, said he also testified before the grand jury for a half hour.

“It’s not the most pleasant experience in the world, but it’s not the worst either,” Englander, a longtime friend of Roth’s, said as he left the Orange County Courthouse Thursday morning. He declined further comment except to say that authorities have assured him that he is not a target of their investigation.

Among other areas, authorities are believed to be interested in Englander’s financial relationship with Roth’s former executive assistant, Dan Wooldridge, who left county government in August to work for Englander.

For years, Wooldridge supplemented his work as one of Roth’s top aides by producing campaign brochures and consulting for Englander on local city council and Assembly races. His financial disclosure statements show he received between $1,000 and $10,000 annually from Englander’s Campaign Management Inc. of Costa Mesa in recent years.

But Wooldridge said he steered clear of any potential conflicts by avoiding Englander’s clients--who include waste haulers, cable operators and mobile-home park owners--when their projects came before the county.

“I was very sensitive to the conflict I had with Harvey,” Wooldridge said in an interview Thursday. “I always disclosed this and told every (news) reporter who would listen about the things I did with Harvey.”

Wooldridge said he was “a little reluctant” to talk further about his relationship with Englander if the grand jury is looking into it, but would be happy to discuss it fully with authorities.

Englander first became involved in the Roth case earlier this year when The Times reported that Roth failed to disclose in state filings last year that Englander had given him a 2% stake in a fledgling sunscreen company.

In addition to the stock transaction, questions have arisen in recent months about Roth’s acceptance of meals, trips, home improvements, flight upgrades, an $8,500 loan and other items from people who later had business come up for votes before the County Board of Supervisors.

Englander’s appearance Thursday morning opened the second day of testimony before the Orange County Grand Jury in the Roth case.

Earlier this month, county lobbyist Frank Michelena appeared before the 19-member body. Also testifying was Geoffrey Fearns, president of the Baldwin Co.’s Orange County division, who had arranged for the landscaping of the front yard of the Roths’ Anaheim Hills home in 1990. Roth did not pay for the job.

As Englander completed his testimony Thursday, four assistants to Roth who had been subpoenaed in the case--Wilma (Bunnie) Davis, Marcella Fong, Judi Ortega and Christine Smith--waited outside, conferring occasionally with their lawyer.

The only direct role that the four are known to have played in the Roth case derived from their presence as guests at a Valentine’s Day lunch in 1991.

Thomas D. Barnett, president of the Ampco parking company in Los Angeles, took Roth and the four staff members out for a $520 lunch in Garden Grove, five days before Roth made a motion at a Board of Supervisors meeting to award the firm a county parking contract. Roth reported receiving a $20 lunch that day from Barnett.

Lawyers for the four Roth employees had discussed the immunity issue with prosecutors in previous weeks, and by Thursday morning “it was almost a done deal,” with some details to be worked out, attorney Riddet said.

By late morning, Ortega, a receptionist in Roth’s office, left the grand jury waiting room and appeared in open court before Superior Court Judge John J. Ryan, who handles grand jury matters.

“It appears Miss Ortega is a material witness, and there’s no objection to the court signing the immunity form?” Ryan asked. Both Riddet and Deputy Dist. Atty. Guy Ormes told the judge that was correct.

Ryan sealed the file on the case, although both Riddet and Ormes said later they had no objection to the immunity agreement being public. Said Julie Boyd, a clerk to Ryan: “Anything having to do with the grand jury is secret.”

Several hours after the agreement was finalized, Ortega appeared before the grand jury.

Riddet said the immunity deal ensured that anything she said before the panel could not be used against her later in a criminal prosecution. Immunity power is generally used to gain testimony from witnesses who might otherwise refuse to cooperate on grounds of self-incrimination.

While he would not discuss details of the case, Riddet said he believes a lawyer should seek immunity for a witness in a criminal case “if there’s anything at all that’s in the least troublesome. . . . It’s just the cautious approach.”

He added that “even if (the lawyer) thinks the client has done nothing wrong--which is how we feel about all four of these clients--different people may take a different view. . . . It is possible that an overzealous D.A. might sweep them in.”

Fong, who handles social service and health care matters for Roth, along with some clerical duties, also testified before the grand jury Thursday afternoon, answering questions for 2 1/2 hours, Riddet said.

She did not seek immunity from Judge Ryan.

Riddet said he could not discuss any details surrounding that decision, but Roth chief of staff Steven E. Malone said he suspected that Fong did not need immunity because she has only worked in the office for a short time and “her duties involved virtually nothing . . . in any of the media reports” on Roth.

The grand jury ended its hearings in late afternoon before hearing testimony from Davis and Smith, the remaining two subpoenaed Roth assistants. They are to reappear at a later date, and Riddet said they may also seek a grant of immunity from the court.

Several prosecutors said they were surprised by the tactic, adding that it was uncommon to see a witness such as Ortega seeking immunity.

“It seems somewhat unusual,” Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said in an interview, “but I would hope the attorney has the best interests of the clients in mind, so we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.”