Advertisement

Conroy Sues Spitzer Over Remarks on Sexual Bias Case

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

County supervisorial candidate Todd Spitzer was sued Thursday for libel and slander by his campaign opponent at the same time he was accused of changing his position on the proposal to convert the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into a commercial airport.

Assemblyman Mickey Conroy (R-Orange) filed the suit against Spitzer, a deputy district attorney, in Orange County Superior Court, accusing him of “repeatedly lying about me” to voters.

At issue are speeches and campaign statements made by Spitzer about Conroy’s upcoming sexual harassment trial.

Advertisement

“Spitzer has insisted on repeatedly lying about me, even after I warned him that I would sue. Enough is enough,” said Conroy in a news release. He could not be reached for further comment.

Spitzer, who is also a trustee of the Brea Olinda Unified School District, called the lawsuit “a joke.”

“This is an act of a desperate and failed politician,” he said. “That’s Mickey Conroy. He continues to embarrass the people of Orange County. He just doesn’t get it.”

On the same day the suit was filed, former County Supervisor Bruce Nestande charged that Spitzer had flip-flopped on the proposal to build a commercial airport at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. Nestande, head of a group that supports a commercial airport at El Toro, said the two met last summer and Spitzer “made it very clear at that point in time that he was in support of an airport at El Toro.”

Spitzer, who has campaigned against the controversial airport proposal--perhaps the most highly charged issue in the campaign--said the Nestande allegation was yet another last-minute tactic to defeat him. Conroy has accepted campaign contributions from Dave Ellis of Newport Beach, a paid consultant for airport supporters, Spitzer said.

Conroy campaign literature also has accused Spitzer of reversing his position on the planned expansion of the James A. Musick Branch Jail in an unincorporated area near Irvine and Lake Forest. Conroy’s campaign said Spitzer told Sheriff Brad Gates he was for that expansion. Gates, who has endorsed Conroy, could not be reached for comment.

Advertisement

Spitzer says he has always been against the Musick expansion and supports building a jail in Santa Ana near the Orange County courthouse.

“This is a last ditch effort,” Spitzer said. “The power elite of this county is trying to discredit me. They are scared. Conroy, their boy, is not going to win.”

The last time the opponents for the supervisorial seat now held by Don Saltarelli squared off publicly was at a rally in Mission Viejo in September, when Conroy shocked onlookers by giving Spitzer the middle finger. Conroy said he was tired of Spitzer bringing up the sexual harassment allegations.

The controversial Conroy, who made national headlines earlier this year for a failed attempt to pass a law that would require paddling of graffiti vandals and misbehaving students, has said he regrets that incident.

The sexual harassment trial involves a former legislative intern who claims she was fired from Conroy’s staff after complaining he forced her to give him hugs, back rubs and kisses. She sued him in civil court for $1 million in damages and the trial is scheduled for Nov. 18.

Spitzer has contended that Conroy deliberately postponed the trial, originally scheduled for last May, until after the election, which Conroy denies. Spitzer also contends that Conroy has allowed $583,000 in state taxpayer funds to be spent fighting the lawsuit after the Assembly Rules Committee had investigated the charges and found him “guilty.”

Advertisement

Conroy’s political consultant, Mark Thompson, said Spitzer is technically wrong on that point.

“What the Rules Committee did was say Mickey’s office was in violation of the Assembly’s zero tolerance” policy on sexual harassment, Thompson said.

But Spitzer refuses to back down.

“I have done my research and I stand by my statements,” Spitzer said. “If Mickey Conroy will go to trial on this case he has against me before the election, let’s pick a jury tomorrow. If he wants to go to court tomorrow and will testify under cross-examination, let’s do it.”

Advertisement