State Asked to Rule on Possible Conflict Involving Supervisor : District attorney: Susan Lacey will refrain from certain budget votes pending a decision. Her husband represents defendants under a county contract.

The Ventura County district attorney on Tuesday asked the state attorney general to render a formal opinion on whether Supervisor Susan K. Lacey, whose husband represents defendants under a county contract, can legally vote on budgetary issues affecting his office.

Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who wrote an April 28 letter to Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren requesting an informal opinion on the possible conflict, instead asked that Lungren’s office prepare a formal ruling on the matter.

Lacey said Tuesday that she would remove herself from upcoming votes concerning the district attorney’s office budget until a decision is made by the attorney general.

The request for a formal opinion makes moot the demand for an informal ruling, which would have taken only weeks to render. Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Rodney O. Lilyquist, who said he received the updated request by phone Tuesday, said it would take between four and six months to research a formal ruling.

Lacey announced the informal request during Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which was poised to determine the fate of the district attorney’s proposal to hire as many as 101 employees to administer welfare programs mandated by the state. That agenda item was continued one week because of Supervisor John K. Flynn’s absence.

Lacey defended her record of abstaining on votes relating to the business that her husband, Ed Lacey, does with the county. But she said she would broaden her abstentions in light of the request.

“Until we receive back an opinion . . . it would be best for me just not to vote on your budget,” she told Bradbury, whose office is facing potential budget cuts of 10%.

The district attorney insisted he was not alleging that Supervisor Lacey has voted improperly.

But he said continuing cuts in his office’s budget have forced him to rethink the question of undue influence, which comes at a time when supervisors are considering slashing his budget by more than $1 million.

“Our research indicates there is a real potential for conflict of interest,” Bradbury said.

A formal opinion “carries a lot more weight” and the decisions are made public, Bradbury said in explaining his request for a formal ruling.

“We wanted to handle it confidentially and privately,” he said. “But now that Supervisor Lacey has made it a public issue, we decided it was more appropriate to make it a public ruling.”

Bradbury said more budget cuts would mean fewer prosecutions and less work for Conflict Defense Associates, which contracts with Ventura County to defend clients who cannot be represented by the public defender’s office. He said Ed Lacey is on a monthly retainer that pays him whether he works for CDA or not.

“If the number of cases to him are reduced because of budget cuts, he continues to receive the contract amount, but he has more time to pursue his private practice,” Bradbury said.

But CDA partner Willard P. Wiksell said his attorneys are paid on a case-by-case basis.

“I don’t know what Mr. Bradbury’s feud is with Supervisor Lacey, but the fact that Mr. Lacey works for us on a per-case basis has nothing to do with how Supervisor Lacey votes on any issues,” Wiksell said.

The special assistant district attorney who prepared the request said Lacey’s caseload guarantees a minimum salary, which serves as a retainer.

“Information given to us guarantees (Lacey) is given a minimum number of cases every month, which is the same thing as being on a retainer,” Donald D. Coleman said.

But in conflict of interest cases “it does not matter whether the financial effect increases or decreases the income as long as there is an effect of $250 or more,” he added.

Ed Lacey, who works primarily on misdemeanor and juvenile cases, said Bradbury’s concern is unfounded because fewer prosecutions would mean fewer cases for him to defend.

“The logic is actually the other way around,” Lacey said. “The more cases Bradbury prosecutes, the more work I would get. Why this has suddenly become an interest to (Bradbury), I don’t understand.”

The rift Tuesday between the supervisor and the district attorney is not the first.

Just last month, Lacey and Supervisor Maggie Kildee agreed to return $1,600 in illegal campaign contributions and pay civil fines of $400 each after an investigation by Bradbury’s office.

The district attorney said he pursued that investigation only after someone tipped his office off to potential campaign violations.

Times staff writer Tina Daunt contributed to this story.