Supervisors Divided Over Allegations Against Roth : Reaction: While concurring that any hint of impropriety could tarnish the whole board, they are split on who is to blame.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

April 21, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SANTA ANA — Orange County supervisors, reacting to questions raised about colleague Don R. Roth’s political finances, agreed Monday that the issue could tarnish the entire board but were split over who is to blame for it.

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder said Roth exercised “poor judgment” in failing to report an unusual rental arrangement and three trips to Santa Catalina Island that were hosted by political supporters.

But board Chairman Roger R. Stanton placed the blame on the media, saying that “it’s really unfortunate when a guy is charged and basically convicted in the newspaper before the real authorities have looked at the situation.”

The issue of Roth’s gifts was raised in a Saturday report in The Times. Political finance experts said that Roth’s failure to report the rental arrangement or the trips appeared to violate state law.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he was surprised by the allegations. “I have always respected (Roth) as a person of good character,” he said.

Riley agreed with Wieder’s assessment that publicity over the matter could reach beyond Roth and affect the other members of the Board of Supervisors as well.

Wieder said that “in this day and age when people don’t trust us,” any hint of impropriety will hurt the image of government.

“The more we have of this, the less any of us are perceived as trustworthy,” she added.

Under a state initiative approved overwhelmingly by California voters in 1974, elected officials are required to report all meals, trips, income and other gifts above set amounts that are given to them by constituents.

The Times reported that Roth’s latest economic disclosure statement, filed April 1, did not disclose that he had been hosted on three trips to Santa Catalina Island and had received what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan from a family of political supporters who own a mobile-home park network.

The loan came in the form of a rental agreement that Roth reached after separating from his wife in mid-1990. He moved into the Ponderosa Travel Trailer Park, owned by the Dougher family of Laguna Beach, but was allowed to defer his $500-a-month rent until he ended the lease, Roth said.

He paid back rent of $8,500, without interest, three months ago, Roth said. He added that he believed the arrangement did not have to be reported because an officeholder’s primary residence is exempt from disclosure laws.

Roth was not available for comment Monday, but his aide, Dan Wooldridge, said that the supervisor is talking with his lawyers to determine whether any “inadvertent technical violation may have occurred.”

Wooldridge said that while Roth believes he violated no laws, state regulations for politicians are “complicated, vague and contradictory.”

The FBI in Santa Ana has confirmed that it has opened an investigation in connection with the Doughers’ mobile-home parks. Sources interviewed as part of that probe said that questions focused on Roth’s rental arrangement in the Anaheim park, along with other political contributions made by family members.

Officials with the Fair Political Practices Commission in Sacramento, citing a new policy on non-disclosure of its investigations, said Monday that they could not reveal whether or not the agency is looking into the Roth matter.

Similarly, Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said: “I’m not in a position where we can comment one way or the other with respect to what’s happening with that.”

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez would not comment on the Roth issue, but the other three supervisors voiced strong opinions. Riley and Stanton generally closed ranks around Roth, while Wieder was the most critical.

Wieder said the rental agreement in particular raises the question: “Was (Roth) taking advantage of his position?”

She said Roth should ask himself: “Would I have gotten the same treatment if I wasn’t a public official?”

“That’s a pretty hard one,” she said. “Ignorance is no excuse. He could have thought this through better.” She said the burden is now on Roth to show the public that the rental agreement and the trips were “not what they seem. . . . Otherwise, there will always be suspicion.”

Stanton agreed that there might be some political fallout. “Every time there is a story about any politician which is negative . . . it reflects on all public officials,” he said.

But Stanton cautioned that state officials should be allowed to review the issue before anyone rushes to judgment. “That’s the way anyone should be treated with regard to the law when there’s a complaint,” he said.