Wieder Pushes for New O.C. Code of Ethics

Spurred by the scandal surrounding former Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth, board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder met with the county’s top attorney Monday to begin drafting a new code of ethics that she said should “reduce the perception that public officials are on the public dole.”

The move came as leaders of two political reform groups prepared to formally ask the supervisors today to ban all gifts to county officials--an idea that appears to have gained support on the board. If enacted, that proposal could give Orange County the toughest government ethics policy in the state.

“There’s no reason for them to be given all these things,” Shirley Grindle, chairman of the TINCUP campaign reform committee, said Monday. “They make enough money. (They should) buy ‘em.”

Each year, county politicians routinely report having accepted thousands of dollars in tickets to sports events, seats at black-tie banquets, gift baskets, flowers, dozens of expensive lunches from lobbyists and other freebies from local business people--all allowed under state ethics law.

But the proposal to be offered jointly today at the Board of Supervisors meeting by Grindle and William R. Mitchell, president of the Orange County chapter of Common Cause, seeks to end that years-old practice with “a total ban on all gifts” to county officials and staff.

Grindle has proposed a ban on gifts to politicians many times before. But she said that only now--because of Roth’s resignation last week and publicity over an ongoing district attorney’s investigation into allegations of influence peddling by him--does she see a legitimate chance of success.

“I never thought it could happen,” said Grindle, who is also developing a separate proposal to register and track people who lobby the county. “But this has all happened so fast that it’s given us a window of opportunity.”

Prosecutors are seeking to determine whether Roth, in violation of state law, traded political favors for thousands of dollars in meals, trips, airline ticket upgrades, stock, home improvements and other unreported gifts from business people who had interests before the Board of Supervisors. Many of the allegations were first raised in The Times.

Roth, 71, has denied any criminal wrongdoing. In announcing his resignation, he said he could no longer do his job amid the continuing probe. Gov. Pete Wilson last Wednesday appointed child advocate and Orange City Councilman William G. Steiner to replace Roth in the North County district.

State law already prohibits officials from accepting more than $1,000 in gifts from a single source within a year, or from voting on matters affecting anyone who has given them more than $250 in gifts. All gifts worth more than $50 must be reported.

The city of Los Angeles has taken the limits further, adopting what is considered one of the toughest gift-acceptance policies in the state. City officials there cannot take more than $25 in food or hospitality from lobbyists, or more than $100 from anyone with business before them, in a calendar year.

But Robert M. Stern, who is co-author of the state’s 1974 Political Reform Act and an expert in the field, said, “I don’t know of any place in the state (with a total ban on accepting gifts.) Certainly (Orange County’s proposed ordinance) would be the strictest law, probably in the nation.”

Stern cautioned that the proposal could prove “unwieldy” unless specific exemptions were laid out allowing officials to take gifts from relatives and personal friends outside of government.

Even so, he said, “this is a good step forward. It will help restore some of the confidence that’s been lost in Orange County government in the last few months.”

A majority of the Board of Supervisors appears to favor some form of Grindle’s proposal.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said he wants to make sure the county explores “gray areas,” such as a politician’s acceptance of a mug or a plaque after addressing a civic group. In general, however, Vasquez said he “supports the concept” of banning gifts from people with county business.

But Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he doesn’t like the idea.

“To me, this is an acknowledgment that we can’t be trusted,” Riley said. “That’s not how I operate, and I don’t think this is something we need.”

Wieder, however, said that the 10-month-long Roth episode has tarnished the entire board and that strong measures are needed to restore public trust. That is why Wieder said she wants to develop a new code of ethics for the county.

“Change is in the air,” she said.

Wieder said she wanted to pursue the issue earlier but waited until after Roth had resigned to avoid any potential embarrassment to him. “Because of . . . courtesy and decency to him, I was convinced to hold off,” she said.

The county already has an ethics code for its employees, which details contacts with constituents that could pose a conflict of interest. But County Counsel Terry C. Andrus said the code does not apply to the supervisors.

Andrus, who met with Wieder Monday to begin the task of developing the ethics code, said the first step will probably be to consolidate existing local, state and federal ethics guidelines into a single, all-encompassing code that covers the actions of elected officials, political appointees and employees.

From there, he said, county officials will determine “if there are any gaps” that may need to be addressed with new county ordinances.

“I don’t think (Wieder) is ruling anything out. Right now, it’s all sort of at the germinating stage,” Andrus said.

Wieder said it is “premature” to discuss specific elements that the code might include.

But she added that a simple doctrine should guide politicians in determining what they accept from constituents: “If you weren’t in public office, would you get it? That should be the rule of thumb.”