Developer Gifts Force Wieder to Sit Out 69 Votes

SANTA ANA —  Orange County Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, in recent years the most active political fund-raiser of any supervisor, has been forced to disqualify herself from 69 votes since early 1989, a review of county records indicates.

During that period, Wieder--in order to comply with county campaign laws requiring elected officials to abstain from votes involving donors who exceed a certain limit--has abstained more often than the rest of her colleagues combined.

The vast majority of her abstentions arise because of projects directly involving the Baldwin Co., an Irvine-based developer whose officers contributed heavily to Wieder’s unsuccessful 1988 congressional campaign and has since brought a bevy of proposals before the board.

Wieder also leads the pack in missed meetings, having skipped 23 board sessions in roughly 21 months; Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez missed meetings the next most frequently: He has been absent for 14 sessions during the same period.

The missed meetings and abstentions threaten to fuel criticism of Wieder, a three-term incumbent facing a Nov. 6 runoff. Some observers said in interviews last week that Wieder’s record reflects her inattentiveness to the nuts and bolts of her supervisorial duties and illustrates her close ties to the development community, especially the Baldwin Co.

Others, however, said the significance of Wieder’s record may be overstated, and some attribute her high number of abstentions to the supervisor’s scrupulous attention to declaring potential conflicts.

But a recent $2,500 contribution from the William Lyon Co. State Political Action Committee has reinforced Wieder’s critics, leading some to complain that she is violating the spirit of the county’s campaign finance law.

Wieder strongly rebuts that, saying that her absences are primarily the result of conducting other county business that happens to fall on meeting days and that nearly all of her abstentions are the result of a one-time “accident”--overlooking the limit on Baldwin Co. contributions.

“If you look at my activities on the board, you’ll see that I’m more active than anyone,” Wieder said. “Nobody gives you credit for the days you put in doing important work, but nobody works harder here than I do.”

For Wieder, the abstentions issue traces back to an unsuccessful bid for a congressional seat in 1988. Congressional races are notoriously expensive. In her fund raising for that campaign, Wieder accepted $1,000 contributions from both James and Alfred Baldwin, the brothers who run the Baldwin Co. In addition, each of the developers’ wives gave Wieder $1,000.

Combined, those donations put the Baldwin Co. far above the $1,874 county threshold that requires supervisors to abstain from matters involving a “major campaign contributor.”

As is required by the county fund-raising ordinance, Wieder has disclosed that conflict and has properly abstained from votes.

“Her high level of abstention is really understandable, given the high level of scrutiny by the press and public on potential conflicts,” said Sandy Sutphen, a professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton. “It sounds like she’s trying to be really scrupulous.”

But some observers worry that Wieder’s acceptance of the contributions has effectively silenced her constituents’ voices on matters involving the Baldwin Co. In addition, Wieder has been forced to abstain on issues in the last 21 months involving the securities broker Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, another major contributor to her congressional race, and Warmington Homes, a South County developer.

“Her constituents should be asking what kind of representation they are getting,” said Mark Petracca, a UC Irvine political science professor. “Is this someone who’s really able to represent her district, if she has to remove herself from votes because she’s taken so much money from a developer?”

Wieder’s recent acceptance of a $2,500 contribution from the Lyon PAC--a gift that she said “wasn’t even solicited. . . . It came as a very pleasant surprise”--has redoubled criticism of the supervisor’s fund raising. Critics accused Wieder of exploiting a loophole in the county fund-raising law and said she should remove herself from voting on Lyon matters, a step she has not taken.

Wieder’s campaign records indicate that she accepted the $2,500 Lyon contribution June 4. Her disclosure statement, signed by Wieder and her campaign treasurer, lists that contribution as coming from the William Lyon Co., but the PAC’s statement says the money came from it, not the company.

The distinction is legally important, because taking money from a PAC does not trigger the abstention requirement on company issues, and Wieder has continued to vote on routine Lyon Co. matters since June 4.

But even if the gift came from the PAC and not the company itself, some observers believe that Wieder should stop voting on issues that involve the company.

“This is such a clear attempt to evade” the rules of the county fund-raising law, said Shirley Grindle, a former planning commissioner and one of the officials who helped draft the law. “I recognize that there is notably one supervisor who has abused this, who doesn’t see any problem with voting on issues that involve a company, even when its PAC is a major donor.”

Wieder, however, said the PAC and the company are different entities, so accepting gifts from the PAC should not affect decisions involving the company. Although the PAC is funded largely by company employees, it operates independently of the company, and employees are not obliged to contribute.

“This gift was not from the company,” Wieder said. “The PAC is constituted of an aggregate number of people, and those are the people who made the contribution.”

Records on file with the county indicate that the William Lyon Co. PAC is largely the work of the company. The PAC’s most recent disclosure form lists eight contributors to the PAC, all of whom either work for the company or are married to someone who does. PAC decisions on campaign contributions are made by a three-person committee, two of whom are company employees.

“There is no distinction,” said Grindle, adding that the county fund-raising law was drafted in 1978 and does not directly address the issue of PACs.

“The PAC is the company, its employees and its owners,” she said. “This is an area that we’re going to have to address soon.”

Wieder’s acceptance of the PAC contribution is not the first time that she has taken money from a prominent development company’s PAC. On March 10, 1988, campaign documents on file with the registrar of voters indicate that Wieder accepted $2,500 from the Irvine Co. Employees Political Action Committee, known as ICEPAC.

On April 27, less than two months later, Wieder voted for a development agreement sought by the Irvine Co. on the Laguna Laurel project. That agreement was approved by a rare 3-2 vote, with Wieder joining supervisors Don R. Roth and Thomas F. Riley to form the majority.

While Wieder’s fund raising, particularly from the development community, has drawn fire in recent years, some analysts believe that her attendance record could end up being even more politically damaging.

In her runoff campaign, Wieder faces Westminster Councilwoman Joy L. Neugebauer. City records show that since the beginning of 1989, Neugebauer has missed one of 84 City Council meetings and has never abstained from a vote.

During that same period, Wieder has missed 23 meetings for varied reasons, including several that were the result of medical problems she wrestled with in early 1989. Her attendance has lapsed behind that of her colleagues, most notably 5th District Supervisor Riley, who has missed just two meetings in that time.

Riley declined to comment specifically on Wieder’s attendance but did say: “To appear at meetings and to be able to vote is one of the most important duties of a supervisor. I take that very seriously. The public forum is where we do our work.”

Told of Riley’s remarks, Wieder retorted that her colleague can attend more meetings because “his concentration is on the 5th District, and mine is on the whole county.”

Though 14 of her absences are attributed either to vacations or medical appointments, Wieder has missed many of her meetings to attend conferences and occasionally to testify in Washington and Sacramento on county issues.

The same is true for her colleagues: Vasquez, for instance, missed several meetings this year to travel to Uruguay with the U.S. attorney general and to testify in Washington regarding the Santa Ana River flood control project.

Wieder cited her work-related trips and her membership in varied state and regional organizations as the reason for most of her absences. And attending those meetings, she said, is often the most important thing for the county and her district.

“Does never leaving the fifth floor (where board members have their offices) mean that you’re doing a good job?” Wieder asked. “I think I serve my district better by being involved.”

Nevertheless, some observers say missing the meetings could hurt the supervisor. “That strikes me as a problem for her,” said Alan Saltzstein, a political science professor at Cal State Fullerton.

“To the average voter, being at the meetings is an important responsibility,” he said. “You elect these people. You pay them well, and you at least expect them to show up.”

Petracca of UCI called the absences “simply inexcusable. Representation only occurs when a person is present. It doesn’t happen by osmosis.”

Other observers said that much of the board’s work takes place out of the public eye, so simply missing meetings may not seriously harm a supervisor’s ability to be effective. Sutphen of Cal State Fullerton said Wieder’s attendance record “might not be as significant as it appears.”

Wieder, whose attendance has improved markedly in 1990 from the previous year, agreed: “I’ve worked as hard as any of my colleagues, and I’ve only missed meetings when it was necessary.

“You can’t look just at the numbers,” she added. “From the numbers, you can make it look like hamburger, or you can make it look like steak.”

Correspondent Jon Nalick contributed to this report.

Supervisor Watch From January, 1989, to date, here is how often Orange County supervisors have missed meetings orbeen unable to vote on issues because of some potential conflict of interest. Absent From Meetings Harriett M. Wieder: 23 Gaddi H. Vasquez: 14 Don R. Roth: 10 Roger R. Stanton: 7 Thomas F. Riley: 2 Abstained From Voting*Harriett M. Wider: 69 *Baldwin Co. and related matters Don R. Roth: 20 *Major donors, mostly Santa Margarita Co. Roger R. Stanton: 10 *Shawntana Development & naming park after him Thomas F. Riley: 3 *John Wayne Airport public relations contract & naming terminal after him Gaddi H. Vasquez: 2 *Major donors, mostly Baldwin Co. (also abstained on one medfly vote) Source: records of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors