O.C. Sheriff Continued Claiming Expenses Without Itemizing

During the last two years, Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona continued to bill thousands of dollars to his election committee for unitemized expenses, despite earlier legal concerns about the lack of detail on spending reports, campaign documents show.

In 2004 and 2005, the sheriff did not disclose how he spent more than $20,000 of his roughly $36,000 in claimed “officeholder costs.” Previously, he was paid about $110,000 for meals, travels and other costs by his committee without identifying any of the expenses on disclosure statements.

On the statements, covering 1999 to 2003, Carona reported the $110,000 vaguely as “loans” for which he was seeking reimbursement.

State law generally requires officeholders to provide details on individual payments of $100 or more and to report them as expenses. A recent Times story about the $110,000 has prompted Shirley L. Grindle, a longtime Orange County government watchdog, to file a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, asking for a formal investigation.

Grindle said it was impossible to tell from Carona’s disclosure statements whether the expenses were legitimate.

Grindle wrote in her complaint that some expenses could have “provided a lavish lifestyle for the sheriff and his family.”

Carona, who is seeking a third term in the June election, declined to comment.

His political advisor, Michael J. Schroeder, and campaign lawyer Charles Bell did not respond to calls and e-mails asking for more information on the expenses. They have said that all cash outlays were proper, but Schroeder has denied The Times access to any receipts.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces campaign laws, has the option of conducting an administrative investigation into Grindle’s complaint or referring it to local prosecutors. A commission spokesman declined to comment on the complaint.

Questions about the sheriff’s campaign statements come as he contends with a series of scandals and controversies.

His former top aide is facing bribery charges. A sheriff’s captain is charged with illegally soliciting campaign donations on Carona’s behalf. The state attorney general is investigating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault that two women have lodged against the sheriff. And federal authorities have subpoenaed records from his campaign, charitable organization and troubled reserve deputy program.

In addition, the district attorney’s office has referred to the FPPC allegations that Charles H. Gabbard, the owner of a Newport Beach company, funneled thousands of dollars to Carona’s 1998 campaign through an illegal stock swap.

Campaign disclosure experts say Carona’s methods are unusual in several ways, beyond the lack of itemization for such large amounts. They say they are puzzled that he did not use a campaign credit card or committee checking account to pay the expenses directly, rather than seeking reimbursements for what he said he spent out of pocket.

Officeholders should be willing to release receipts if any doubts arise about their reporting methods, say political treasurers and watchdogs.

Election funds are “like public trust money,” said David Gould, president of the California Political Treasurers Assn.

“There should be total transparency,” said Bob Stern, head of the Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the state Political Reform Act.

The act allows officeholders to spend campaign money on governmental, legislative and political activities, providing they keep receipts for all expenses. Diverting the funds to any personal use is illegal.

From 1999 through 2003, the sheriff described the $110,000 as “loans” because he, in effect, lent his committee money by paying for the expenses upfront with his personal funds, according to Schroeder and Bell.

They have said they believe an interpretation of the Political Reform Act allowed the committee to characterize such expenses as loans. Bell, however, has also said that he advised the organization to stop reporting the expenses as loans, beginning with the 2004 statements, and the committee did so.

Campaign treasurer Lesley Stoll told The Times she had reported those “loan” amounts after adding up cash and credit card receipts that Carona gave her for such things as meals, hotel bills and parking fees.

Most of the amounts were reported in even figures, such as $4,000 or $2,000. Bell has said this was the result of rounding off amounts of less than $100.

But the law does not allow candidates to round off dollar amounts. And it is unclear why Carona’s expenses often tallied up to virtually the same amounts over periods of several months. In 2003, for example, the amounts were $4,000 every other month the first half of the year and $2,000 the second half of the year.

Bell has said he counseled the committee to itemize any individual expenses of $100 or more.

In 2004 and 2005, Carona reported total officeholder expenses of about $36,000 and itemized roughly $16,000, mostly in meal and travel costs.

The disclosure statements do not specifically identify the $16,000 as part of the $36,000, but Bell has said that the itemized meal and travel costs were indeed paid as officeholder expenses. He has not said what the remaining $20,000 was spent on.