Gift Givers Culpable as Water Officials

* Thank you, William Mitchell, for your right-on article, “Gift Giving Is at the Root of Water District Scandal” (March 28). You made my morning.

This same theme caused me to compose a letter to The Times last week. I didn’t mail it, however, because who would care?

The Rancho Santa Margarita Water District case clearly shows the lack of moral fiber that exists in our local communities today. The gift-givers are every bit as culpable as those public officials who accept their favors.

Wake up, people! Get mad and let your officials know that, in the future, companies such as Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates and MacDonald-Stephens Engineering will be held legally liable for their actions too.

SALLY TWOMBLY

Corona del Mar

* William Mitchell’s “Gift Giving Is at the Root of Water District Scandal” begins to illuminate the contradictory message of the Santa Margarita Water District scandal: take gifts which exceed levels stipulated by state statute and you may lose your job and wind up indicted by the district attorney; give gifts which exceed levels stipulated by state statute and it’s thought to be business as usual for companies seeking contracts from the public sector.

Frankly it makes neither ethical nor legal sense that the firms--Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates of Irvine and MacDonald-Stephens Engineering of Mission Viejo--which gave so generously to public officials at the water district--bear no responsibility for the alleged criminal misconduct which transpired. Yes, “those who lavish gifts on public officials,” especially gifts in excess of state statutory limits, should be held legally accountable for their actions. Mitchell proposes a gift-ban ordinance as the remedy. But there’s no reason to wait for passage of an ordinance. There are a number of obvious ways to hold excessive gift-givers accountable under state statutes and the common law for contributing to criminal misconduct by public officials.Even the toothless Political Reform Act of 1974 establishes a variety of prohibitions against gift giving by lobbyists. If RBF executives actively lobbied water district officials for engineering contracts, why aren’t they considered lobbyists subject to restrictions imposed by government code?

Given these available remedies I’m left to wonder why the district attorney’s office doesn’t appear to be interested in investigating and possibly prosecuting those firms who may have knowingly tempted Santa Margarita Water District officials to violate state conflict-of-interest laws.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine