Honig Told to Pay $337,509 in Restitution

Former state schools chief Bill Honig was sentenced to four years probation and ordered to pay more than $337,000 in restitution by a Superior Court judge Wednesday, but received no jail time for his four felony conflict-of-interest convictions.

Judge James L. Long issued a preliminary order that Honig repay the funds that he improperly issued in state contracts while he was state superintendent of public instruction. In addition, the judge sentenced Honig to serve 1,000 hours of community service and pay a $10,800 fine. The judge suspended a one-year jail sentence.

Upon his sentencing, Honig was automatically removed from his elected office. Gov. Pete Wilson expects to appoint a replacement next week.

Defense attorneys had pleaded with Long to reduce the felony convictions to misdemeanors and to overrule a probation department recommendation that Honig serve the community service time--about six months of full-time work--because it would be a financial hardship on his family.

Long brushed aside both arguments and said it would be unfair to disadvantaged defendants if Honig were to be relieved of performing community service because of a financial hardship.

“There cannot be two standards of justice,” said Long in a voice that seemed at times tinged with anger. “There cannot be a standard for the . . . powerful and affluent and a standard for those who are not powerful. . . .

“The reason I mention that,” he continued, “is I heard during the course of arguments that Mr. Honig should not be ordered to do community service based on hardship to himself and his family.

“If that be the case, what do I tell the countless number of minorities, the new immigrants, the poor people who are sent to jails, penitentiaries and work furloughs every day in Superior Courts in the state?”

Honig was found guilty by a jury Jan. 29 of the conflict-of-interest charges in connection with his authorization of $337,509 in state contracts that benefited his wife’s nonprofit Quality Education Project. The funds were used in the mid-1980s to hire educators who did parental involvement work in school districts in conjunction with QEP, which paid Nancy Honig various salaries, including about $100,000 in 1989.

Honig and his attorneys were stung at the sentencing hearing by Long’s community service ruling, but they were shocked at the order to pay back $337,509.

“Nobody’s ever heard of this before,” Honig said of the restitution demand at a news conference shortly after the sentencing hearing. “I think this is a pattern of pushing this to the hilt. . . . They want to grind you into the dirt.”

The liberal educator admitted making a mistake in connection with the contracts, but contended--as he has since charges were first made against him--that he is a political victim of conservative Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren.

“I did something that was wrong,” Honig said at the news conference. “I should have been more sensitive to the conflict situation. . . . But that does not mean that this case wasn’t charged as a felony because of political considerations.”

Lungren, who declined comment during the Honig trial, scoffed at the accusation of political intrigue in a telephone interview after the sentencing.

“If Bill Honig and his attorneys really believed that this was a political prosecution,” he said, “then they could have challenged the indictment by filing a claim of discriminatory or selective enforcement.”

Lungren said the order for restitution came as no surprise to him although his office had not asked for it.

“I had confidence that the judge was going to impose restitution,” he said. “We think that the judge has in fact imposed exactly what the amount of restitution should be. . . . It really shows the size of the offense here. This was not a ticky-tack trial.”

Defense attorney Patrick Hallinan, who has repeatedly accused Long of being unfair to his client, filed a motion for a stay of sentence, but Honig was ordered to report to the Sacramento County Probation Department within 48 hours to work out the terms of his probation and community service.

Long termed the restitution order preliminary and temporary pending a hearing in which Honig would be allowed to dispute the amount to be paid and offer evidence on how much he is able to pay.

The question of Honig’s financial condition was discussed throughout the sentencing hearing. Pointing out that the convictions have already cost him his $102,000-a-year post as schools chief, Honig pleaded that the charges be reduced to misdemeanors so that he can find work in education.

“I would beseech you, your honor,” said Honig, 55, “I do want to stay in education. I do want to contribute. . . . I have paid a price by losing this office, but the (conflict of interest) statute is also very restrictive about my ability to work in education.”

The hardship pleas were countered by Deputy Atty. Gen. Cynthia Besemer, who accused the defendant of contradicting his own defense stance during the trial when it was argued that Honig was so affluent that there was no financial motivation to break the law.

“It’s a little bit contradictory,” said Besemer. “One of the defenses put forth in this case was that Mr. Honig was so well off that he wouldn’t be tempted by the amount of money at stake in this case.”

Honig told reporters after the sentencing hearing that he has no money and no job and that his wife has given up her position with QEP.

“First of all, I’m broke,” he said. “I’ve got to work. I’ve been out of a job now for almost a month and Nancy doesn’t have a salary to speak of since she quit the position.”

Honig faced up to five years in prison, but neither the prosecution nor the probation office sought penitentiary time.

However, Besemer argued that Honig should be locked up in the local jail for at least a day as a lesson to white collar criminals.

“All too often white collar criminals escape all punishment,” she said. “And sometimes it takes the closing of a cell door if only for a day to impress upon an individual the severity (of the crime).”

While Honig insisted in court that he was remorseful, his probation report based on a Feb. 1 interview--three days after his conviction--indicated that he still did not believe he had broken any law.

“He conceded that he used poor judgment,” wrote Deputy Probation Officer Gail Spruce, “but continues to be of the opinion that he did nothing illegal.

“Except for the present matter,” the probation officer wrote, “the defendant has led an exemplary life, devoting his energies to the field of education. . . .

“While the defendant’s record of service in the area of education is commendable, it does not negate the circumstances of the offense. The defendant exercised extremely poor judgment, violated the public trust and further tarnished the reputation of government employees.”

All but one of Spruce’s recommendations were followed by Long, who ignored her advice that only $400 be sought as restitution and that civil proceedings be used to seek the $337,509.

Honig was first elected schools chief in 1982 and, over the last decade, has built a nationwide reputation as an educational reformer.

Defense attorney Arthur J. Shartsis said he had received 200 letters from business executives, educators and other professionals in support of Honig.

Wilson reacted with sadness to news of the sentencing.

“It is obviously sad when someone who has won the confidence of the public finds himself in that situation,” said Wilson.

Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown also expressed sympathy for Honig, saying that the fall of his longtime friend is a tragedy.

Brown said he “would assist in any way possible to give Bill Honig an opportunity,” but offered no specifics about any job.

The Speaker continued to insist that he would not support a Republican replacement for Honig and called on Wilson to appoint a caretaker who would not seek election in 1994.

Times staff writers Daniel M. Weintraub and Dan Morain contributed to this story.