Panel to Weigh Higher Fine for Ex-Agriculture Chief Voss

The Fair Political Practices Commission agreed Thursday to reconsider a proposed $21,000 fine against former state Agriculture Secretary Henry J. Voss with a view toward increasing the penalty to $51,000.

The commission ordered its staff to split its list of 14 counts into additional counts against Voss for failure to report $420,000 in income he received from agribusiness sources while in office, and to recommend a potentially higher fine at a meeting next month.

The proposed $21,000 fine was computed by the commission’s staff in an agreement negotiated with Voss after he failed to disclose the outside income. Voss resigned under fire last April and returned to his vast farming operations in the San Joaquin Valley.

Voss admitted failing to publicly disclose income from 1989 to 1993 that his orchard and nut-processing businesses received from such major food processors as Sunsweet, Del Monte, Tri-Valley Growers and Blue Diamond Growers. Voss has said he did not intentionally fail to disclose them, but rather did not know he was required to do so on his annual statements of economic interests.

The commission staff also investigated allegations by Consumers Union that as agriculture secretary, Voss was immersed in conflicts of interest by receiving income from farming interests that he regulated as a state official.

The staff told the commission it found no evidence that Voss violated any conflict-of-interest laws. Its conclusion was supported by the commission Thursday, but assailed by Consumers Union official Harry Snyder. Snyder accused the FPPC staff of “skimming the surface” in its investigation of Voss.

Typically, the commission routinely accepts settlements that its staff negotiates with offenders. But the proposed $21,000 fine for 14 counts of failure to report outside income drew criticism from Commissioner Deborah Seiler as being understated.

Seiler said that by her calculations, the counts against Voss should total 51 and he should pay a fine of $1,000 each, or $51,000. The law allows a maximum fine of $2,000 per count.

“This is a very serious violation of . . . reporting requirements and a serious violation of the public trust,” Seiler charged as Voss sat in the audience with his attorney, Ben Davidian, a former commission chairman.

Voss did not testify and later refused to speak with reporters.

Mark R. Soble, a commission staff attorney who negotiated the proposed fine with Voss, defended it as being fair and reasonable. “None of these disclosure violations were intentional,” he told the commission.

The three members of the commission who were present appeared to be divided on whether the $21,000 fine was severe enough. They agreed to further divide the 14 counts as proposed by Seiler and study the issue again in May.