Honig Insists He Shouldn’t Have to Pay Restitution

In an emotionally charged court hearing Wednesday, former state schools chief Bill Honig insisted that he should not have to pay restitution even though he was convicted of felony conflict of interest last month in connection with $337,509 in state contracts.

Honig and his attorneys argued that the Department of Education lost no money related to the contracts, which paid four educators to set up parental involvement programs in local school districts.

The attorney general’s office responded that the state contracts directly benefited his wife’s nonprofit company, Quality Education Program, and that the money should be repaid.

The matter was taken under submission by Superior Court Judge James L. Long, who had issued a preliminary order requiring Honig to repay the money after his conviction Jan. 29.

Long could order Honig to repay all or part of the amount, or none of it. He did not indicate when he would rule.

After his jury trial, Honig was also sentenced to pay a $10,800 fine, serve 1,000 hours of community service and report to a probation officer for four years. Terms of the sentence were stayed pending appeal.

Honig lost his post as superintendent of public instruction upon conviction.

During the trial, tension developed between chief defense attorney Patrick Hallinan and Judge Long and seemed evident again at the restitution hearing on Wednesday.

At one point Hallinan argued that the question of restitution belonged in civil, rather than criminal court.

“I think this is an inappropriate forum to consider restitution,” said Hallinan, who had accused Long of prejudice during the 3 1/2-week trial.

“The law is clear,” responded the judge.

“The law is not clear,” snapped Hallinan, who quickly added a softer, “The law is not clear as to my reading of it.”

Much of the restitution hearing was reminiscent of the trial itself as Hallinan insisted that the state got more than its money’s worth from the educators under contract and the prosecution argued that QEP and not the Department of Education benefited.

“There is no fraud, there was no theft,” said Hallinan. “The Department of Education was able to enter into contracts that put parenting programs in various school districts. . . . The state of California lost nothing by this.”

But Deputy Atty. Gen. Cynthia Besemer responded that “theft and fraud are not required for restitution. (Educators under contract) did what Bill Honig and Nancy Honig wanted. It’s not the same thing to say that’s what the Department of Education wanted.”

Hallinan had tried unsuccessfully to get Long to disqualify himself before the hearing, citing an alleged public perception of prejudice because the judge’s sister works as an attorney in the civil division of the attorney general’s office. Long declined.

The judge was clearly irritated with Hallinan on Wednesday when the attorney said he was not prepared to offer evidence of Honig’s ability to pay restitution. He gave the attorney until Monday to file a formal request to present such information.

Besemer complained to the judge that Honig had failed to include assets such as his 40% interest in a winery, estimated at $4 million in value, when he submitted financial information to state officials before the hearing.

Honig responded that he had been instructed by officials that he was not required to report such holdings.