Officials Growing Tired of Roth's Legal Woes : Investigation: One O.C. supervisor concedes the spreading inquiry could disrupt county government.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and KEVIN JOHNSON

Jan. 27, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SANTA ANA — Supervisor Don R. Roth’s political colleagues, who for months have generally closed ranks around the embattled legislator, voiced growing concern Tuesday that Roth’s legal problems threaten to disrupt the normal operations of county government.

“I certainly hope that this issue is resolved one way or another in the very near future,” Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said, breaking months of silence on the Roth case.

“The reason is that the duration of this issue creates a distraction, somewhat of a disruption, at a time when our focus must be on the future of county government in a very tough economic climate,” he said.

Vasquez’s comments, echoed by several other county officials, came the day after the district attorney’s office said it suspects Roth of theft, money laundering, obstruction of justice and several other possible felonies stemming from his dealings with business people in Orange County.

The allegations, contained in a search warrant affidavit filed Monday, escalated the district attorney’s 9-month-old investigation into allegations that Roth may have traded political favors for thousands of dollars in trips, flight upgrades, home improvements and other unreported gifts.

Roth has not been charged with any crime, and the 71-year-old supervisor has vowed that he will be exonerated of any alleged wrongdoing.

News of the allegations was the talk of the day at the Hall of Administration Tuesday as the Board of Supervisors began a new term under incoming Chairman Harriett M. Wieder. Speculation grew over whether the district attorney’s accusations might prompt Roth to consider resignation.

Roth declined comment Tuesday, leaving the Hall of Administration quickly after the start of a supervisors’ reception for Wieder after her “State of the County” address.

Associates close to Roth acknowledged that the court filing was troubling, but one said: “He’s given no indication that he plans to step down.”

Said Wieder: “He’s a very tough bird.”

Orange County Republican Party Chairman Thomas A. Fuentes said he was not familiar enough with the district attorney’s allegations to comment, but Richard J. O’Neill, chairman of the Democratic Foundation of Orange County, a party fund-raising organization, said he was surprised by the severity of the allegations.

“I’m sorry to see it happen to Orange County politics,” he said. “We’ve gotten away from this (type of political scandal) in the 1970s, and now you see it come roaring back.”

But he added that Democrats saw no political advantage in the case since Roth’s ouster either by resignation or criminal conviction would almost certainly lead to the appointment of another Republican by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Some officials suggested that Roth’s legal troubles--which have prompted him to abstain from four votes in recent weeks because of potential conflict of interest--might weigh down the entire board.

But Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, who like Vasquez has generally refrained from discussing the Roth matter, sought to distance the board Tuesday from Roth’s troubles.

“Each of us is to be judged on our actions. Any allegations against one should not be considered as an allegation against county government, and I don’t think that it is,” he said.

Wieder said she was “saddened” by the district attorney’s allegations. “I was very sorry. No one wants to see this,” she said. “It’s rough for the business of government. The picture’s not focused the way it should be.”

When the district attorney opened its Roth probe in April, Wieder drew some irritation from her colleagues when she told a reporter that Roth exercised “poor judgment” in failing to report three trips to Catalina Island and what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan from a local family with business before the Board of Supervisors.

Wieder was asked again Tuesday for her thoughts on the allegations against Roth, and this time she declined to discuss the issue. “I’m not going to hold another colleague in judgment,” she said. “You’re not going to get from me another nail in the guy’s coffin.”

Meanwhile, financial records and interviews shed light on a Roth home-mortgage now being questioned by the district attorney.

In their court filing on Monday, prosecutors alleged that Roth may have falsified his application for a home loan in 1990 to the American Commerce Mortgage Co. of Anaheim, claiming he earned $4,000 a month that did not appear on state or federal financial records.

The supervisor’s former wife, Jackie Roth, declined to discuss details of the mortgage, but alleged in an interview Tuesday that Gerald Garner, chairman of the board of American Commerce National Bank and a prominent political contributor to Roth and other candidates, facilitated the loan agreement.

“Gerry was a friend. Gerry set up the whole thing. We needed a loan, and he said he’d take care of it,” she said. “To my understanding, it was all done legitimately, and it was all done through Gerry.”

Tuesday, Garner said that while his bank does not deal in home loans, he may have provided some advice to the supervisor, whom he described as a “good guy.”

“If Jackie says I made a referral, I could have, but I don’t recall,” Garner said. “I may have passed on (mortgage company President) Brian Zwick’s name after seeing him in the hallway or something like that. But I had no wherewithal to help him.”

“I got no favors and he never asked me for any,” said Garner. “I didn’t get him a lower (interest) rate on a loan. I got no special favors at all.”

Garner was instrumental in helping Roth win election in 1986, when Roth was engaged in a hotly contested race for supervisor against Jim Beam. Garner’s bank, Anaheim Commerce National Bank, loaned the Roth campaign $102,500 to provide a much-needed infusion of cash.

The Roth camp enlisted individual contributors such as Anaheim hotelier Jim Stovall and political consultant Lois Lundberg to guarantee the loan, but the bank actually gave the money to the campaign. Roth campaign bookkeeper Jane Willet said Tuesday that the entire loan has since been paid back.

Garner himself has also given more than $7,300 to Roth’s campaign since 1985.

Officials at Garner’s company, American Commerce National Bank, and at American Commerce Mortgage Co., which arranged the Roth mortgage, say the two firms are completely independent, with no mutual ownership ties.

Garner said, however, that the bank leases office space to the mortgage company in the same office building and sold the mortgage firm rights to the “American Commerce” name for $1 when the mortgage company was founded seven years ago.

The two companies also have an unwritten understanding to funnel business to one another, Garner said.

Garner said he was not aware that a search warrant had been served on his bank seeking access to Roth’s personal accounts. He described the supervisor as a friend with whom he sometimes dined or associated with at a golf tournament.

The district attorney’s office says it is interested in the mortgage loan because of Roth’s claim that he made $4,000 a month as a consultant, a claim that his lawyer now says was untrue.

“It’s almost a Catch-22 for Roth,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Guy R. Ormes said Tuesday. “He either lied to get the loan, or he lied (on income-tax reports and political disclosure reports).”