Former County Colleagues Rally to Rubino’s Defense

A parade of county officials bore witness Tuesday to the integrity of former Budget Director Ronald S. Rubino, describing him as “ethical,” “honest” and even “outstanding.”

Testifying in Rubino’s ongoing trial on money-skimming charges, Clerk-Recorder Gary L. Granville told jurors that the ex-budget director was known for “a high level of integrity, honesty and fairness.”

“In one word: outstanding,” Granville said when asked to describe Rubino.

Granville, one of the top elected officials in the county, was one of three county employees who vouched for Rubino’s reputation in testimony Tuesday.

By calling his former colleagues to testify, the defense is attempting to portray Rubino as a loyal civil servant who could not have assisted former Treasurer Robert L. Citron in diverting nearly $100 million in interest earnings belonging to about 200 cities, school districts and other agencies.

The prosecution has contended that Rubino helped to craft the diversion scheme to make up for an unprecedented shortfall in the county’s budget.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys had expected Rubino’s trial to last three months, but the case has been proceeding at whirlwind speed with both sides slashing their witness lists. On Tuesday, 12 days into the trial, Presiding Judge J. Stephen Czuleger told jurors that they should be prepared to begin deliberations early next week.

Apart from calling Granville as a character witness, defense attorney Rodney M. Perlman asked Ronald DiLuigi, assistant director with the county’s health care agency, to testify about Rubino’s record as budget director.

“He was very true to his word and very straightforward,” said DiLuigi, who credited Rubino with being an aggressive fund-raiser for the United Way and other charities.

Betty Schaffer, a manager with the Orange County Superior Court’s mediation and investigation services, said she had known Rubino since 1980. “He is a very ethical man, an honest man who can be trusted to tell the truth,” Schaffer said. “I always knew that I could trust him.”

Earlier in the day, Perlman said he was considering asking Citron to testify as a defense witness. Citron testified during the prosecution phase that he never told Rubino about the interest diversion scheme.

With the jury out of the courtroom, Perlman indicated that Granville would confirm how Citron told him that Rubino was not involved in the diversion scheme.

But Czuleger said that testimony would be hearsay, and that Citron would have to testify about his conversation with Granville.

Czuleger adjourned court before lunch to give Perlman and others enough time to bring Citron to court. But when the trial resumed, the character witnesses were called. It is now unlikely that Citron will retake the stand.

*

Earlier in the day, the defense called former County Counsel Terry C. Andrus, who testified that he did not tell the Board of Supervisors about accompanying Citron to a meeting with U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission officials in April, 1994.

Andrus said SEC officials inquired about Citron’s investment strategies, which led to a $1.6-billion loss in December 1994, prompting the county to file the largest municipal bankruptcy in U. S. history.

Andrus said he kept the meeting “private from the Board of Supervisors . . . my wife, everybody” because he was told that the meeting was a “low-level [SEC] inquiry.”

If the SEC inquiry became public knowledge, it could have caused a run on the county investment pool, Andrus said.

By calling Andrus, the defense attorney is trying to show that top county officials knew about the treasurer’s risky portfolio and did nothing about it.

Under cross-examination by Assistant Dist. Atty. Jan J. Nolan, Andrus said interest diversion was never discussed at the meeting with SEC officials.

Perlman also sought to introduce evidence that the county--not the pool participants--owned the securities in the commingled pool and, therefore, the county could not steal its own money.

But Czuleger said he would not allow the defense to pursue that line of argumentation, which the county is using in its civil damage suits against Merrill Lynch & Co. and other Wall Street brokerages.

“What you end up doing is trying a portion of the civil case here,” Czuleger said. “It confuses the issues rather than make them clearer.”