State Probes Charity’s Poll on Prop. 209

State authorities are questioning whether the California Wellness Foundation, a nonprofit foundation to promote health care, violated its charter when it paid for an opinion poll on Proposition 209.

Foundation officials said the $102,000 survey was ordered to help assess public attitudes about the potential health care impact stemming from the ballot measure’s plan to ban affirmative action programs in government.

They subsequently considered, but rejected, a plan to follow the survey with television commercials highlighting the initiative’s potential harm.

Still, the action touched off controversy and a legal inquiry by the state attorney general when proponents of the ballot measure complained that the charity is motivated by politics, not better health care.

“This money is supposed to be spent on health,” Gail Heriot, co-chair of the Proposition 209 campaign, wrote recently in a letter to the attorney general. “Using it for non-health-related political purposes is nothing short of corporate theft.”

Magdalena Beltran-del Olmo, spokeswoman for the foundation, confirmed that the organization paid $102,000 for a recent poll on Proposition 209. She said that the group would not comment further on the matter.

Steve Telliano, spokesman for Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, said the state has not yet determined whether the poll was a violation of the group’s charter. If such a finding is made, however, Telliano said the charity’s board members could be responsible for repaying the foundation out of their own pockets.

The Woodland Hills-based Wellness Foundation was created in 1992 by the California State Corporations Commission as the product of a plan by Health Net, a major health maintenance organization, to switch from a nonprofit to a profit-making company.

Health Net was ordered by the commission to finance the charity as compensation for all of the assets the company acquired while it was not paying any state taxes. The charity was directed to use the cash for health treatment and disease prevention programs.

The involvement of the $800-million Wellness Foundation in the Proposition 209 campaign is potentially significant since both sides of the high-stakes campaign have complained about cash shortages. Since last year, the campaigns have raised just more than $3 million combined, according to the latest financial statements.

In contrast, the Wellness Foundation spent more than $4 million two years ago on television commercials about Proposition 188, a measure sponsored by the tobacco industry to curtail California’s landmark workplace smoking ban. The initiative was defeated.

Foundation officials said at the time that they were not taking a side in the political debate, only highlighting the proposal’s health impact.

Last month, the foundation announced that it was considering a similar plan for Proposition 209. As before, foundation President Gary Yates said the ads would not take a position on the initiative.

But Yates said the commercials might point out that health care in minority neighborhoods could suffer if the elimination of affirmative action programs resulted in fewer black or Latino doctors.

“There are potential negative effects if you can’t do as good a job recruiting” minority doctors, he said.

The foundation’s discussion about television commercials prompted supporters of the ballot measure to file a complaint Sept. 17 with the attorney general.

The proponents also sought to pressure the foundation by writing to major health care companies that provide funding for the charity to say that the group was violating the law. Beltran-del Olmo confirmed that the foundation subsequently received an inquiry from the state attorney general.

But by then she said, the foundation had decided against any further involvement in Proposition 209. She said the decision was not prompted by the legal inquiry. Instead, she said officials determined the money could be better spent on health care needs in minority neighborhoods.

Still, the foundation has been asked to explain how it believes the money spent on a public opinion poll is consistent with its charter.

The attorney general’s involvement has been blasted as a political stunt by opponents of the ballot measure.

Opponents said they have not coordinated their campaign with the foundation or had access to its poll. But Read Scott-Martin, a spokesman with the opposition campaign, complained that it was inappropriate for Lungren to conduct an investigation because he is an outspoken supporter of the ballot measure.

“Dan Lungren has a conflict of interest,” charged Read Scott-Martin. “He’s a Republican whose political fortunes are . . . now lashed to Proposition 209.”