Supervisors’ Case Heard in Appeals Court

A prosecutor on Wednesday sought to dissuade a panel of skeptical appellate justices from tossing out charges against two county supervisors accused of misconduct for their roles in the Orange County bankruptcy.

The three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal peppered Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory J. Robischon with questions and comments challenging the charges against supervisors Roger R. Stanton and William G. Steiner, the only two sitting supervisors who were in office at the time of the bankruptcy.

Robischon argued that the supervisors were required by law to oversee the county government and had failed to discover the ill-fated investment practices of former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron, who managed an investment pool for the county and about 200 local government entities. Citron’s wrong-way bets prompted the county to declare bankruptcy in December 1994.

“It’s more than mistaken conduct. . . . It’s blindly sitting back and allowing the government to go on on its own,” Robischon said.

But the justices questioned whether the supervisors’ failure to detect the investment troubles amounted to “willful misconduct,” and even whether the supervisors had any real authority over the elected treasurer.

Some of the toughest questioning during the two-hour hearing came from Justice Edward J. Wallin, who criticized as vague some of the accusations that Stanton and Steiner failed to adequately oversee Citron.

Wallin zeroed in on an allegation that Steiner had failed to inquire about the nature of his duties on the Board of Supervisors, saying it would be “ridiculous” to expect newly elected supervisors or other elected officials to read the government statutes outlining their responsibilities.

Wallin also asked whether a county supervisor could be expected to detect the illegal account transfers that Citron later admitted making.

“It would be frightening for the board to manage the cash and finances of the county,” Wallin said. “What else would they have time to do?”

Justice William F. Rylaarsdam raised doubts about the supervisors’ actual power over the treasurer, whose position is elected and governed by its own law. The panel ordered lawyers on both sides to hand in written arguments on that issue by the end of next week. A ruling would be expected in the following weeks.

In June, the same appellate court put a halt to legal proceedings against the officials until it was shown compelling reasons why they should be tried. The supervisors could be removed from office if convicted of the misconduct accusations.

A Superior Court judge already threw out one of four accusations against Steiner and Stanton and defense attorneys turned to the appeals court in an effort to get the others dismissed.

Both sides claimed to be satisfied Wednesday with the hearing.

“I’m pretty pleased,” said Wylie A. Aitken, representing Stanton. “I think the court is in tune with what the issues are.”

Robischon declined to comment, but a spokesman for the district attorney’s office said the prosecutor felt “very good” about the hearing.

“His feeling was it was a complete airing and full hearing and that we were able to make our points,” Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade said.