D.A. Promotes 10 Who Gave to O.C. Campaign

Ten of the 12 promotions handed out by new Dist. Atty. Anthony J. Rackauckas went to staff members who contributed money to his election campaign, a move that some critics say has left a politicized atmosphere at the county’s top law enforcement agency.

Election records show that Rackauckas’ campaign received nearly $26,000 from 72 of the office’s 240 prosecutors--far more than any recent candidate for district attorney. While many of the lawyers he promoted are respected veterans, it has raised the eyebrows of some political watchdogs.

“It casts a shadow,” said Shirley Grindle, a community activist and author of the county’s campaign-finance ordinance. “I am not saying his motives are bad, [but] he should not have put the employees of the district attorney’s office in that position of being asked to contribute to his campaign.”

Rackauckas strongly asserted that the contributions played no part in the promotions, which he said were based solely on merit and made after an extensive internal review process. Because such a large number of employees made contributions, he said, it is only natural that some in that group would receive promotions. And excluding prosecutors from advancement simply because they made campaign donations would be unfair, he said.

“When I ran for district attorney, it was for the purpose of making changes in the way the office runs,” he said. “And the first step was to look at the management. . . . If I had believed all of my predecessor’s supervisors were doing a good job, I would not have run for office.”

To some observers, the situation raises a larger question about whether candidates should accept political contributions from employees they might one day oversee. Rackauckas’ election opponent, prosecutor Wallace J. Wade, did not take any donations from employees and stated the policy on campaign literature.

Still, many candidates accept contributions from government employees and make no apologies about the practice.

The issue has come up in government agencies across the country, in some cases prompting unsuccessful efforts to curb the practice of employees contributing to some political campaigns.

“It is very difficult if not impossible to separate the two things,” said Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College political science professor. “It is always a balancing act. You try to remove political considerations on the one hand while making sure that your principal subordinates also support your policies.”

Rackauckas said he decided to accept political donations from department employees because he wanted to give them a voice in deciding who their new boss should be. Most of the donations were for less than $500, though a few reached the $1,000 contribution limit.

County records show eight of Rackauckas’ 15 mid-level supervisors gave from $100 to $1,000 to the campaign. All his top level managers--four senior assistants and the chief assistant--also donated $250 to $1,000.

Soon after taking office in January, Rackauckas streamlined the department’s management structure by decreasing the number of mid-level supervisors from 20 to 15. He said the changes were designed to make office less “top-heavy.”

But some critics say they are concerned because the changes have increased the number of “at-will” managers. Under former Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi, mid-level supervisors enjoyed a certain amount of job security once they were promoted to that level. They could not be demoted without a lengthy review process. Rackauckas eliminated those positions and expanded the number of appointed supervisors who now serve at his will.

Bill Mitchell, former director of Orange County’s Common Cause, said the changes disturb him because those prosecutors might feel more beholden to the district attorney for their long-term career survival.

“What you have here is Tony doing things that [are] . . . politicizing the promotion process,” Mitchell said. “He is a bright man, a capable man and a first-rate lawyer, and I have no doubt about that. . . . But I am not sure he understands the consequences of what he is doing or how the public will perceive this.”

One longtime prosecutor critical of Rackauckas’ reshuffling agreed. The new managers “can have a great temptation to put the desires of the boss above his or her own best judgment,” said the attorney, who asked not to be identified.

Rackauckas said he understands the concern but said no serious effort to improve the office is going to please everyone.

“I want to be sensitive to criticism, but I can’t run the office based on whether someone might criticize a decision,” he said. “It is a lot easier to criticize than to build an organization.”

He said his current supervisors were selected because he wanted to infuse more trial experience into management. All current assistant district attorneys are courtroom veterans, something that some former heads of units lacked, he said.

“Tony had a vision about certain changes necessary to the office,” said Assistant Dist. Atty. Jack Sullens, a 24-year veteran who contributed $100 but was not promoted. “Changes that would help us regain credibility with the courts [that] we had been losing over the years.”

Mike Jacobs, a respected 20-year prosecutor who has handled many high-profile murder cases, was promoted to assistant district attorney for the homicide unit. Jacobs said he contributed $1,000 to Rackauckas’ campaign because he believed the district attorney’s office needed a change in management and that Rackauckas, a former judge, was the person to do it.

“There is no pattern there,” he said. “He promised the best person for the best position and that is what he did. You can always find some people who aren’t happy.”

Rackauckas said he has no regrets about accepting the contributions. But because he is now in office, he said, he will not take any employee donations if he runs for reelection in 2002.

Whether government employees should make campaign contributions has long been an issue of debate in Orange County as well as other local governments.

A decade ago, county supervisors came under fire from watchdog groups for accepting hefty contributions from employee unions. The board consistently approved raises for the workers even as it was cutting funding for public services.

When Capizzi ran for his first full term as district attorney in June 1990, he announced he would not accept contributions from employees, saying the practice raised ethical concerns. That year, however, Capizzi was criticized by an opponent for allowing several prosecutors to campaign door-to-door for him.

Like Capizzi, Wade said he decided to turn away any employee contributions to avoid the appearance of a conflict. But Rackauckas countered that Wade “hardly had any support [within the office], so it is easy for him to say he wouldn’t take any money.” Wade denied that was the reason he took the stance.

Grindle said she only wishes Rackauckas had also turned away employee contributions last year.

“All of this suspicion could have been avoided by not accepting or soliciting money from within the office,” she said.