Citing Gifts, Roth Abstains in 2 O.C. Votes

Questions about potential conflicts of interest prompted Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth to abstain from two votes Tuesday that affected the city of Anaheim and a local business family.

The family had hosted Roth on three weekend getaways and gave him what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan, while the city of Anaheim had given him a lifetime golfing pass. Roth did not report any of these items as gifts.

Roth’s colleagues on the Board of Supervisors said it was the first time that they could remember a supervisor having to abstain from a vote because of questions over his acceptance of gifts from constituents.

Roth told the board that he wanted to adopt the “cautious approach” in avoiding votes on any issues that have become part of the 8-month-old controversy over allegations against him of influence peddling.

The district attorney’s office is conducting a criminal probe into Roth’s dealings with local business people, seeking to determine whether Roth traded political favors for meals, trips, flight upgrades, home improvements and other gifts. Roth has denied any wrongdoing and said he expects to be exonerated.

Roth’s attorney, Dana Reed, said the supervisor’s abstentions “should not be viewed as an admission of anything other than the fact that there is a controversy over whether these transactions are a gift under the (state’s) Political Reform Act.”

The act, approved in 1974 in the wake of Watergate, requires local elected officials to report all gifts valued at more than $50, and bans them from voting on matters affecting anyone who has given them gifts worth more than $250 in the previous year. Violations can be prosecuted as misdemeanors.

Roth, 71, abstained Tuesday from voting on final approval of a subdivision map for a $5-million condominium project in Midway City. The project is on land owned by a members of the Dougher family in Laguna Beach, who own a dozen local mobile home parks. The measure passed 4 to 0.

The Doughers hosted Roth on three trips to Santa Catalina Island in 1990 and 1991 and also gave him what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan by deferring his rent at one of their mobile home parks for 18 months.

Roth also excused himself from voting on an item to restore a probation officer position to the county payroll as part of an agreement with the city of Anaheim to combat gang activity there.

The move surprised Roth’s own lawyer and the mayor of Anaheim, among others, especially since Roth represents the city on the Board of Supervisors, was mayor of the city in the mid-1980s and draws his political support from that area.

Reed said that Roth decided to abstain from the Anaheim vote because of questions surrounding his receipt of a lifetime pass to Anaheim-owned golf courses after he left the city as mayor in 1987. Anaheim also gave these passes to 10 other former city officials.

Reed said Roth’s abstention Tuesday “definitely” does not mark a “permanent disqualification” from Anaheim city matters. He said Roth saw the item on the agenda “at the last minute” and decided on his own to abstain because he had not had time to discuss it with his attorneys.

“I think he did the right thing,” Reed said. But he added that once he has a chance to review any conflict issues posed by the golf outings, “I am virtually certain we are going to tell him he does not have to disqualify himself.”

Between April, 1988, and October, 1992, Roth played 28 times at Anaheim Hills Golf Course and one time at Dad Miller Golf Course in Anaheim, which are owned and operated by the city. Roth brought from one to three guests each time, records show. Green fees and golf carts for all participants in these outings totaled $1,628, but Roth did not pay these expenses because of his city pass.

During the board meeting, Roth said he was abstaining from the city of Anaheim vote out of “an overabundance of caution.” He gave no other explanation and refused comment on the matter afterward.

Anaheim Mayor Tom Daly, who attended the meeting, said he was surprised by the abstention and planned to talk to Roth about whether it would mean Roth would not take part in future Anaheim matters as well.

“I certainly respect Don’s sensitivity in these types of (conflict of interest) matters,” Daly said. “He’s been a great friend of Anaheim as long as he’s been on the Board of Supervisors, and I certainly hope that continues.”

Later, Daly said he was “concerned” about the abstention, “but how big a concern is yet to be seen.” He also said he plans to discuss the city’s golf-pass policy with City Manager James D. Ruth to determine if it should be changed.

Reed said that while he does not believe the Anaheim matter raises any legal problems, the Dougher vote was a “gray area.”

Roth voted on the Dougher condominium project last December, just five days after one of the trips to Catalina.

In a letter to the board Tuesday, Roth acknowledged that he lived in the Doughers’ park in Anaheim and paid only after he moved out in January, 1991.

But the letter added: “At the time I cast that vote last December, of course, I did not believe that I had received gifts of more than $250 within the previous twelve months from anyone with a financial interest in the project.” He nonetheless wanted to take a “cautious approach” and abstain from Tuesday’s vote, he wrote.

Roth’s letter did not mention that the agreement by which his rent was deferred for 18 months had been backdated at his request, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Times. The rental agreement was dated August, 1990, but was not signed until last January.

Nor did the letter discuss the trips Roth took to Catalina Island with the Doughers, or at least two trips he took to Palm Springs during which he used the condominium of local developer Magdy Hanna, who was also affected by Tuesday’s Midway City vote. Newport Pacific Development Corp., which Hanna owns, has agreed to buy the Doughers’ land to develop the condominiums.

It is not uncommon for supervisors to abstain from county votes because of legal conflicts triggered by contributions to their political campaigns. For instance, Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder abstained nearly 70 times between early 1989 and late 1990, in large part because of developers’ contributions toward her unsuccessful congressional bid in 1988.

But supervisors said they do not recall anyone on the board having abstained because of surpassing the $250 state limit on gifts.

While the board clerk’s office said it does not compile such data, Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said, “I’ve been here 18 years and it hasn’t happened to me.” Said Chairman Roger R. Stanton: “I don’t remember it happening.”

Times staff writer Matt Lait contributed to this report.