Grand Jury Suggests Limits on Lobbyists : Government: Panel also calls for a ban on campaign donations from county contract bidders.

The Orange County Grand Jury recommended Friday that the Board of Supervisors require lobbyists to publicly reveal who they work for and also called for a ban on campaign donations from businesses and people seeking work from the county.

Issuing its second report in a week on the topic of county government, the watchdog panel stated that the county’s Dec. 6 bankruptcy has underscored the need to make government more accountable and accessible to residents.

In addition to the restrictions on lobbyists and campaign contributors, the grand jury recommended that the board:

* Have more than one evening meeting a month and hold them throughout the county, not just at the Hall of Administration in Santa Ana.

* Arrange to have board meetings broadcast on television.

* Create an ombudsman who would respond to the concerns and issues raised by citizens, county employees and vendors.

* Schedule more public forums with business leaders, schools, environmental groups and others to discuss county issues and problems.

“There has been a concerted effort to open up the political process in the wake of the bankruptcy,” said Supervisor William G. Steiner, who supported some--but not all--of the recommendations. “This report demonstrates that desire.”

But according to the five-page report, the panel was particularly concerned about revamping the way the county awards contracts and accepts bids. Currently, supervisors have complete autonomy in the contracting and bidding process, the jurors concluded.

The jurors also noted that over the past four years no county contract for $1 million or more had been awarded without the involvement of lobbyists.

The grand jury stated that restrictions needed to be adopted soon, because the bankruptcy has created a greater push to provide county services through private companies and contractors.

“We just want to eliminate any perception that something untoward might occur,” said Walter Jones, a member of the grand jury.

The panel recommended that contractors be obliged to disclose which lobbyists represent them, that lobbying expenses be disclosed in the bidding process, and that campaign contributions to elected officials from contractors, bidding firms or lobbyists be prohibited.

Board Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez said he didn’t have any problems with the recommendations.

“Those are things that should be evaluated and contemplated by the board, but I don’t have a problem with it,” Vasquez said.

Some citizen activists welcomed placing restrictions on lobbyists and reforming the bidding process.

“I think it’s about time,” said Patrick Quaney, local issues coordinator for Orange County Chapter of United We Stand America. “This is something the board and the public should support.”

Lobbyists and some political insiders, however, did not embrace the grand jury’s recommendations.

“I see this as restrictions on First Amendment rights,” said political consultant Harvey Englander. “We don’t need bans on contributions. We need to strengthen reporting requirements, so the public knows all about who is giving the money. I have no problems with that. I just don’t think we want a government run by wealthy elitists.”

Lobbyist Randy Smith said Orange County already has some of the state’s most restrictive regulations covering lobbying and contributions, such as the absolute ban on gifts to elected officials. Smith complained that no one from the grand jury sought out comments from him or fellow lobbyists, and said the report buys into false perceptions about his career choice.

“I think there are sufficient regulations in place now in terms of contributions, gifts,” he said. “It’s unfortunate they’d be making recommendations without talking to lobbyists,” he said.

Smith added that although there is a “really negative image” of lobbyists, “they perform a worthwhile service, for their clients as well as their governmental entity. I don’t think there is anything going wrong, no bad influence, but people feel free to dump on them.”

Steiner said he did not think the proposed changes were necessary.

“Current campaign disclosure laws are sufficiently strict and probably provide sufficient checks and balances,” he said. “All such contributions are currently a matter of public record anyway. When all is said is and done, it is impossible to legislate ethics and honesty.”

The grand jury is not the first group to suggest tighter controls for awarding county contracts since the bankruptcy. In June, members of the county’s Privatization Task Force said they thought the process should be “depoliticized” to eliminate the perception that “influence peddling” occurred in the county.

That task force ultimately recommended that the board end the practice of “district prerogative” by which the board defers decisions on a particular contract to the supervisor whose district is directly affected. It also suggested eliminating the practice of giving supervisors the discretion to award contracts from a list of unrated bidders.

Although the task force toyed with the idea of limiting campaign contributions, it didn’t win a majority support from the group.