Reformers Attack Anaheim Special Prosecutor’s Tactics

The special prosecutor flew into Orange County with an unprecedented mandate to clean up alleged political corruption in Anaheim. His fee: $250 an hour.

But when Ravi Mehta started filing criminal charges and lawsuits, the revelations he turned up were not exactly the stuff of Watergate. There was the failure to itemize a Visa bill on one campaign contribution report, missing employer addresses on another, and a third report filed three days late.

So far, the probe has cost the city $37,500 in fees and an undetermined amount in expenses to Mehta, who recently left the helm of the state Fair Political Practices Commission amid controversy.

But the Orange County district attorney’s office and FPPC officials question whether Mehta has the legal jurisdiction to bring charges at all. No other city or county in California has ever hired a special prosecutor to investigate suspected campaign finance violations, according to the FPPC.

Political reform advocates, normally the first to demand full disclosure of campaign finances, say the criminal investigation is punishing honest politicians who made minor errors, and could discourage good people from running for office.

“There is just not a candidate in the state of California that could not be run up the flagpole for leaving out the occupations of some contributors’ employers on a report, and the way this sort of thing is always handled is by the FPPC, not in the courts,” said Orange County political watchdog Shirley Grindle.

Mehta does not blanch at the criticism. A former Orange County prosecutor, he was chairman of the FPPC until August, when he left after questioning the constitutionality of Proposition 208. The landmark political reform act imposes stricter fund-raising and spending limits on campaigns. The FPPC is responsible for implementing the measure.

In Anaheim, Mehta said, he is simply upholding the law. Whether the reporting violations are minor, he said, is not the point.

“When you are asked to review something and you see violations, unless you want to overlook the violations, the charges have to be filed,” Mehta said. “If I believe there are violations and I believe they are worth looking into and worth being prosecuted, I intend to file them.”

Mehta has declined to comment on his fees or on whether he expects to file more charges.

Since October, when Mehta was hired with the approval of just two members of the Anaheim City Council to investigate and prosecute suspected campaign finance law violations in the 1996 council election, his charges have consumed city government.

Mayor Tom Daly and former council member Irv Pickler are in negotiations with Mehta, who has threatened to file criminal charges if they do not pay fines he has set. A source close to the talks says that the fines are $10,000 or more.

An Anaheim welfare activist accused Daly and Pickler of working together to make campaign contributions to two other city candidates that exceeded donation limits by $500 to $2,000. City Atty. Jack L. White called the allegations of collusion unfounded.

This month, Mehta negotiated a $6,500 settlement with Councilwoman Shirley McCracken who called her offense--omitting employment information of donors on one campaign report--the inadvertent error of a time-pressed volunteer. She said she does not have the money to fight Mehta in court.

Mehta filed criminal charges against another former councilman, Frank Feldhaus, and leaders of the Anaheim Firefighters Assn. Political Action Committee for allegedly committing similar errors, such as filing tardy and incomplete campaign reports.

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anybody filing criminal charges on this kind of small stuff,” said Bob Stern, one of the co-authors of Proposition 208 and now an analyst with the Los Angeles-based Center for Government Studies, a private campaign reform organization.

“I mean, come on. It sounds like it’s overkill.”

Mehta has defenders too.

Councilman Bob Zemel, who pushed for Mehta’s appointment over the objections of most of the council, said: “I can’t believe that the attention is not on the violations but on who’s prosecuting them. If there are violations, well, doggone it, let’s just fix ‘em.”

Councilman Lou Lopez, who is deciding whether to run for county supervisor against Daly, said the money being spent on Mehta’s investigation is worth it.

“This is a small amount to make sure the citizens know that candidates are competing on an even plane during an election,” said Lopez, who asserts that in more than a dozen years in political life he has never made a mistake of any kind on his campaign reports.

“Lou Lopez plays by the rules. And if I play by the rules, why shouldn’t everyone else?”

Whether Mehta has the legal authority to enforce those rules is one of the questions puzzling political observers. Few challenge his right to file charges under Anaheim’s political reform ordinance, which allows a special prosecutor to act in lieu of the city attorney.

What FPPC officials and other election watchdogs say is less clear is whether Mehta has the jurisdiction to bring charges under the state Political Reform Act--which he has done in most of the actions he has filed.

That law prohibits appointed city attorneys or their surrogates from filing charges under it. Such charges, according to the act, must be brought either in court by the county district attorney or by a local resident through a complaint with the FPPC. Mehta lives in Sacramento.

“According to the Political Reform Act, the only authorized prosecutor is the local district attorney,” said Fred Woocher, a prominent Los Angeles political law attorney. “He could file with the FPPC if he lived in Anaheim, but he doesn’t.”

Mehta cited a 1970s-era agreement between the county district attorney’s office and Anaheim superseding that law. But the district attorney’s office says it is unaware of such an agreement.

“Well, bottom line is, they can litigate this in court,” if his authority to file the charges is in dispute, Mehta said. “Until they do, there’s nothing to talk about.”

Critics also question Mehta’s decision to pursue the filing errors through the legal system, rather than through the FPPC, which imposes hundreds of fines each year regarding similar violations. Many hundreds more are settled by having a candidate file amended campaign reports.

In each Anaheim case filed by Mehta, reports had been amended to correct the reporting errors.

“The law is designed to use fines and legal action judiciously, not for every violation,” said Isaac Elnecave, Los Angeles director of Common Cause, which monitors campaign finance violations statewide. “In the heat of a campaign, often mistakes are made.”