Supervisors Agree to Get Tough on Gifts : Ethics: There is agreement on a new policy, but where to draw the line on freebies will be harder to decide. The talks come in the wake of influence-peddling allegations against Don R. Roth.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors took a key first step Tuesday toward a groundbreaking ban on practically all gifts to county officials, as the board’s chairman directed the staff to draw up for formal action what could prove the toughest government ethics policy in the state.

Some possible exceptions to the proposed gift ban--such as whether to allow officials to accept T-shirts or similar token gifts from civic groups--still remain to be worked out in coming weeks.

But even the lone dissenter on the board, Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, acknowledged that the county will “absolutely” adopt the new gift policy, which gained greater official acceptance in the wake of influence-peddling allegations that prompted the resignation of former Supervisor Don R. Roth.

“I never thought this could happen,” political reformer Shirley L. Grindle told board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder after the meeting. “This means a lot. It could be the forerunner to changes around the state.”

State law allows government officials to accept meals and other gifts from constituents within certain dollar limits.

But under the proposal put forth Tuesday by Grindle and fellow reformer William R. Mitchell, the county would impose a total ban on the acceptance of gifts from anyone that has business before the government.

Such a ban would give Orange County arguably the toughest policy in the state--perhaps the nation--on the acceptance of gifts by government officials.

Mitchell, who is president of the Orange County chapter of Common Cause, said such a policy was needed “to restore public confidence in the board,” following disclosures about Roth, who resigned his Anaheim-based 4th District seat last week under fire.

The district attorney’s office is seeking to determine whether Roth, in violation of state conflict-of-interest laws, traded political favors for thousands of dollars in home improvements, flight upgrades, stock, trips, meals and other gifts that he did not report to the state in his annual disclosure filings. Many of the alleged violations were first raised in news articles in The Times.

Roth has denied any criminal wrongdoing.

Gov. Pete Wilson, acting to fill the vacancy created by Roth’s resignation, last week named Orange City Councilman William G. Steiner to the position, effective next week.

Steiner, who is also director of the Orangewood Foundation, has been meeting since last week with supervisors, county staff members, and even with Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi to discuss the effect the Roth case has had on the operations of the 4th District.

He has also been reviewing applications of more than 40 people for his staff of seven. The only decision he has made so far, Steiner said Tuesday, is that he will name a new chief of staff, replacing Roth aide Steven E. Malone.

Tuesday’s meeting marked the supervisors’ first public airing of gift practices since the Roth affair first surfaced in The Times last April.

In abstaining from 10 votes in recent months, Roth had alluded briefly at board meetings to potential conflicts caused by gifts. But never before had his fellow supervisors engaged in a public discussion about what politicians should be able to accept in the way of gifts.

On Tuesday, however, each of the four supervisors joined in a 45-minute debate over the merits of a new gift policy, allowing Mitchell and Grindle to far exceed the five-minute limit usually placed on people who bring matters before the board.

The supervisors took no formal vote on the Grindle-Mitchell proposal, but a clear majority voiced general support for the concept. Wieder, meanwhile, directed County Counsel Terry C. Andrus to draft an ordinance within 60 days and created a subcommittee made up of herself and Riley to work with him on it.

Riley’s support may come only grudgingly.

He said he was both “annoyed” and “saddened” to think that government officials are “not trusted” to accept meals or other gifts from constituents without letting it influence them. And he said it would be difficult for him to afford many of the community events he now attends as supervisor.

“I probably stayed on the board one term too many,” said Riley, 80, appointed to the board in 1974 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan.

The gift ban proposed Tuesday is the most far-reaching among a flurry of government ethics proposals to grow out of the political scandal surrounding Roth.

Grindle is also working with supervisors to develop a plan for identifying lobbyists and the government projects or decisions in which they have interests. And just this week, Chairman Wieder began plans for a code of ethics that she said should establish better guidelines for proper government conduct.

Grindle, who led drives for campaign finance reforms in Orange County in the 1970s and again last year, told the board Tuesday that she has Roth to thank for opening a window of opportunity for local government reform.

The practice of allowing people with county business to buy expensive lunches and gifts for politicians and staff members “is a stinky process to begin with,” Grindle said. “It has the appearance of buying influence.”

Who will lose out among the supervisors if the gift ban passes?

While many of Roth’s legal problems now center on unreported gifts, the former supervisor also led the board for several years in reported freebies. For the most recent annual state filings, covering 1991, Roth reported having received $2,880.50 in Rams tickets, champagne, golf outings, and nearly 80 meals from local lobbyists and developers, among other items.

But Roth is now gone.

Among active supervisors, that leaves Riley, the elder statesman of the board, in first place for the most recent filings covering 1991. He reported $2,556 in ballet tickets, flowers, gift baskets, meals and other free items.

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton was next at $995 in reported gifts for the year, followed by Gaddi H. Vasquez at $524, and Wieder at $499.

Steiner, soon to be the newest supervisor, reported having received only one gift for the year--a $100 pass for the Cinedome theaters in Orange--as a city councilman in Orange, according to his most recent state filing.

Lobbyist Frank Elfend, who according to disclosure reports took Roth to five lunches and dinners in 1991, says some of his colleagues may be bothered by the proposed ban, but he does not believe it will threaten his access to government officials. He can talk just as easily with a politician in a business office as in a fancy restaurant, Elfend said.

“This is not a major issue to us,” he said Tuesday. “Our philosophy (at Frank Elfend & Associates in Newport Beach) has always been that whatever the rules are, we’ll comply with them.”

While Vasquez said he supports the “spirit” of the measure proposed by Mitchell and Grindle, he voiced concerns about ensuring that politicians would not be precluded from dealing with civic organizations that regularly invite politicians to events and often give them token gifts of thanks.

Shelby Grad contributed to this report.