ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Gift Giving Is at the Root of Water District Scandal : Misconduct: Firms that lavished presents on public officials encouraged corruption.

The recent filing of criminal charges against two officials of the Santa Margarita Water District has again focused attention on the misconduct at the water district.

While these criminal charges remind us of this sordid saga, a more pervasive and pernicious course of conduct has also been revealed. This is the actions of firms which ply public officials with gifts. While the gift-giving is not illegal, when are we as a community going to acknowledge the moral wrongdoing of those who engage in the gift giving?

If you have followed the continuing press reports regarding the Santa Margarita Water District and other public officials’ problems, one firm’s name appears again and again: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF). This Irvine firm regularly engages in the practice of providing meals, trips and other gifts to public officials.

The gift giving to the Santa Margarita Water District alone is worthy of study (it has resulted in criminal charges). RBF and MacDonald-Stephens Engineering of Mission Viejo lavished gifts on board members and senior employees of the district. These gifts included: sports and theater tickets, massages, fishing trips to Mexico, hunting trips, meals and the ubiquitous dozen long-stemmed roses. The two officials who have had criminal charges filed against them, Walter Knitz and Michael Lord, together received over $11,000 in gifts from RBF during a period of time when the water district gave $13 million in business to RBF.

Other disclosures by The Times indicate that two additional Santa Margarita Water District employees were the beneficiaries of RBF gifts. The two senior engineers with the water district, Bill Dye and Dan Ferons, received nearly $12,000 in gifts during the period RBF was awarded millions of dollars worth of contracts by the water district.

The giving to Santa Margarita Water District employees and officials by RBF is not isolated. A review of the statements of economic interest filed by various county public officials indicates that RBF frequently gives gifts.

What the public needs to understand is that most engineering firms do not regularly engage in the widespread practice of attempting to compromise the decisions of public officials. Significantly, RBF does not lavish gifts on federal officials. Why? Because the federal government has strict gift limitations. The federal government has long recognized the inherently corrupting effect such ingratiating has on the decision-making process and its likely result of misuse of tax dollars. It should be noted that many officials of special districts manage to refrain from accepting these often offered gratuities. These officials are to be commended.

A gift ban ordinance, similar to the one adopted by the county Board of Supervisors, would have greatly reduced the opportunity for corruption. Further, that gift ban ordinance holds gift givers responsible as well as public officials.

An extremely troubling aspect is the involvement of RBF in the alleged violations of the laws by water district officials. The giving of the gift by RBF and its receipt were legal so long as those receiving the gift did not participate in decisions affecting RBF. But, contemporaneous with the giving of the gifts, the water district officials did, according to the charges, make decisions benefiting RBF. Yet, RBF stood by and watched their fishing and drinking “buddies” violate the law without saying a word.

The result is that RBF has received millions of dollars in contracts from the Santa Margarita Water District while Messrs. Knitz and Lord have criminal charges pending. Former Board Chairman Don B. Schone resigned in disgrace. I wonder if a dozen roses now would make any of these men feel better about the public humiliation they have suffered?

It is time for those who lavish gifts on public officials to be held accountable. In the meantime, public officials should realize that the attention and gratuities showered on them by RBF and others are not based on personal affection, but rather represent a course of action designed solely to benefit the firm. Businesses, such as RBF, give because they expect return. Absent the receipt or at least the expectation of something in return, these firms would not otherwise give. Thus it is advisable for public officials to avoid the taint of receiving gifts.

As we have seen to date, when the light of day shines on these activities, it is public officials who get burned.