Wieder Defends Accepting Lunch Gift From Lobbyists : Politics: The Board of Supervisors chairman says the January meal would have been allowed under stringent ban that goes into effect next month.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Harriett M. Wieder, who has loudly criticized gifts received by other county officials and led the call for government ethics reform, Tuesday defended her decision to allow lobbyists to pay for a $1,500 lunch in her honor earlier this year.

Wieder maintained that the Jan. 26 lunch would have been allowed under a stringent new gift ban that goes into effect next month. The new law, described as the state’s toughest, severely restricts gifts that can be accepted by county officials from people who have business with the county.

“It was a congratulatory event. The people there weren’t even political. It was a gathering of family and friends. They didn’t come to lobby me for anything,” Wieder said in an interview.

The county last week approved a virtual ban on gifts to 1,650 county officials and employees, but included an exception that allows gifts of less than $50 offered as congratulations or condolences. Wieder maintained that the lunch would have fallen under that exemption.

The event, at Antonello’s restaurant in Costa Mesa, was held to celebrate Wieder’s induction as new chairman of the Board of Supervisors, a powerful post that is rotated among the five supervisors.

Three of the other four county supervisors--Thomas F. Riley, Roger R. Stanton and Gaddi H. Vasquez--also attended the lunch, along with a host of friends, business associates and former aides to Wieder helping celebrate her appointment.

The tab for the lunch averaged $32 per person. It was covered by government consultant-lobbyists John Erskine, Caroline Ewing, Joan Gladstone and Ruby Wood, Wieder said. Vasquez, however, asked for a separate check.

“I just simply did what I thought was appropriate, which was to pay for my own lunch,” Vasquez said Tuesday. Riley refused to comment on the lunch. Stanton could not be reached for comment.

Gladstone, a public relations specialist who works regularly for politicians, said that Erskine invited her to attend the luncheon affair and “asked me to help underwrite it.” Gladstone said she was uncertain how the bill was divided among the business people, but she ended up paying only $70, sending a check in that amount directly to Antonello’s afterward.

“This was a celebration to honor someone who has achieved one of the highest elected offices in the county and to say congratulations,” Gladstone said. “No one was there to conduct business.”

But county activist Shirley Grindle, who pushed for enactment of the tougher restrictions on gifts and campaign contributions to politicians, said the lunch casts a bad light on the political process. She suggested that the business people paid the $1,500 tab to ensure “close relations with Harriett.”

“If nothing else, it is very clear that this wining and dining makes political officials look bad--whether or not they did anything wrong,” she said.

Throughout her term as chairman, Wieder has repeatedly voiced the need for a higher ethical standard in government, and has said elected officials must work harder to shore up an image left battered by the March conviction of former Supervisor Don R. Roth on political ethics law violations.

Wieder became one of Roth’s harshest critics last year, after The Times began a series of disclosures centering on Roth’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in loans, home improvements and other unreported gifts from people with county business.

Wieder also upbraided Roth’s staff members for accepting an expensive lunch from a business person on Feb. 24, a month after her own outing, saying: “They just don’t get it. . . . If they weren’t on the fifth floor (working for the Board of Supervisors), nobody would even buy them a cup of coffee.”

But Wieder said Tuesday that she saw no discrepancy between her calls for ethical reform and her acceptance of the January lunch. “It’s only a contradiction if you make it a contradiction,” she told a reporter.

Indeed, Wieder said she believes that the lunch “wouldn’t even have been a violation” under the new gift ban approved by the supervisors last week.

But Grindle, who worked with the county in drafting the ordinance, said politicians can’t put new labels on old gifts to circumvent the law.

“I don’t agree with (Wieder’s claim). She’s wrong,” Grindle said.