County Moves to Require Lobbyists to Register : Ethics: Board seeks to restore public confidence in wake of Roth conviction. Disclosure of clients, political donations to be mandated.

In another effort to restore the tarnished image of county government, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday moved ahead with a plan to regulate lobbyists by requiring them to register with the county and disclose the clients they represent.

Lobbyists would also be directed to disclose the campaign donations they make to county officials in hopes of shedding more light on how they wield influence behind the scenes.

The supervisors voted 5-0 to have the county counsel draft a final ordinance and bring it back to the board within 45 days for review.

The measure is part of a package of proposals that the county is preparing in the wake of the March 25 conviction of former Supervisor Don R. Roth on misdemeanor violations of political ethics laws. Other proposed reforms include a virtual ban on gifts to county officials and a new code of ethics that would spell out the proper relationship between politicians and people with county business.

Board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder said the lobbyist ordinance should “aid us in restoring the public trust in government. . . . (It) will provide the final building block in the system this board is creating to ensure that county business is, at all times, conducted ethically and with fairness.”

Others were less enthusiastic.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he doesn’t “have any problem with the ordinance” but added: “I’m wondering about whether it restores public confidence or just gets an OK in the press. . . . I’m not sure how many people care about it.”

Frank Michelena, widely considered the most influential lobbyist in county politics, said he thinks the measure is unnecessary. But he added: “Whatever makes (the supervisors) feel comfortable, I can live with.”

This is at least the third time that the county has sought to regulate lobbyists, whose job it is to influence the outcome of government contracts and services. Past efforts have been more narrowly focused.

Under a 1978 ordinance that was repealed last year, for instance, people who had business with the board and had donated more than $486 to any supervisor within the preceding 12 months had to register as “influence brokers.”

But last year’s final list of “influence brokers” showed that the measure, as one county official said, was “toothless.” It listed only 12 local firms and did not include such prominent Orange County lobbyists as Michelena, Lyle Overby, Bert Ashland and many others.

“That (list) was very easy to avoid as long as you didn’t make political contributions yourself,” said Randy G. Smith, a lobbyist who represents 15 to 20 clients with county business, yet was not registered as an influence broker. “It wasn’t very effective at all. It was really misguided.”

The measure was repealed last year as part of a massive revision of campaign spending laws approved by county voters.

The current proposal would not define “influence brokers” by how much they donate. Rather, it would require that anyone contracted by a company to influence a county decision, or any company employee whose job is to lobby government, register as a lobbyist, officials say.

Violations could be prosecuted as misdemeanors, punishable with jail time and fines.

Penalties could prove a key component of the law.

In Los Angeles County, violations of lobbying-reporting requirements do not carry civil or criminal penalties, and that has been blamed in part for the ordinance’s relative ineffectiveness.

In Orange County, county officials and government watchdogs say they hope the proposed ordinance will help show how politicians go about awarding millions of dollars in contracts to the firms that lobby them.

“We want everything out in the open about who’s lobbying whom,” said Shirley Grindle, a county activist instrumental in changing local political laws.

Lobbyists “have been allowed to do all this in secret, without the public knowing where the pressure points are,” Grindle said. “That should change. It’s going to make it much more difficult for decisions to be made behind closed doors.”

Supervisor William G. Steiner, appointed in March to replace Roth, said the proposal can only help win back public confidence. “Whenever you do the public’s business behind closed doors it’s going to be suspect,” he said.

Grindle suggested several years ago that lobbyists register with the county and disclose their interests. The proposal attracted little attention at the time, but that began to change early in 1992 after it was disclosed that former Supervisor Ralph B. Clark had played a role in landing a $4-million county contract for a San Jose company that was mired in financial and legal troubles.

Pressure for the ordinance grew last year after The Times reported in a series of stories that Roth had received stock and other unreported gifts from several county lobbyists and businessmen with business before the board. Roth pleaded guilty in March to seven misdemeanor counts of failing to report gifts and of voting on matters involving those who had given him gifts.

One component of Grindle’s original proposal was apparently killed during the recent months of discussion. It would have required lobbyists to report how much they are paid by their corporate clients.

“I wouldn’t vote for that,” Supervisor Riley said of the income-disclosure idea. “That’s not the American way of doing things.”