D.A. Seeks Rehearing on Charges Against Stanton, Steiner

The Orange County district attorney’s office asked the 4th District Court of Appeal on Wednesday to review its recent decision dismissing the willful misconduct charges against Supervisors Roger R. Stanton and William G. Steiner in connection with the county’s bankruptcy.

The district attorney’s office sought the rehearing citing what it called some unfortunate, “unartful babbling” during oral arguments and also a “factual misunderstanding” by the panel.

On Nov. 26, in a blunt 23-page ruling, the three-judge appellate panel threw out the charges, saying that without evidence of corruption or criminal acts, only voters should remove elected officials.

The Orange County Grand Jury had issued the civil accusations in December 1995, alleging that Stanton, Steiner and Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis were guilty of willful misconduct for failing to prevent former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron from losing $1.64 billion in the county-run investment pool through reckless investment practices.

Steiner said he was disappointed that the district attorney is intent on pursuing the case and wasting further taxpayer money. “I guess they are consumed with the case,” he said.

Stanton, who leaves office at the end of the month, called the effort “vindictive,” pointing out that it came the day after he joined a majority on the Board of Supervisors in voting to audit the district attorney’s office.

In the petition for a rehearing, Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory J. Robischon asked the panel to allow him to clarify a remark he had made about what Stanton and Steiner knew of Citron’s activities.

In throwing out the charges, the appellate court wrote that the district attorney had alleged that the supervisors “failed to realize Citron’s investment decisions could bring financial ruin to the county because they did not pay close enough attention.”

The court wrote that the district attorney “apparently concedes” that warnings by current Treasurer-Tax Collector John M.W. Moorlach and others “do not constitute allegations of knowledge.”

But in his petition, Robischon wrote that Stanton and Steiner were forewarned of “the existence of risk and possibility of market losses” in the county-run investment pool and “were informed of something fishy going on over at the treasurer’s office.”

Robischon continued: “To the extent that our unartful babbling may have misled the court, we apologize. But please allow us to clarify what it was that we meant to suggest and just what it was that was being ‘conceded.’ ”

The factual misunderstanding Robischon asked the court to review concerns a statement in the unanimous opinion that revoking Citron’s investment power “was the only way to ‘supervise’ Citron.”

“The problem with this premise, however, is that it is false,” Robischon wrote.