Spitzer Request for U.S. Probe Angers Fellow Supervisors

SANTA ANA —  Supervisor Todd Spitzer’s request to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno for a federal investigation of the county’s housing rehabilitation program was criticized Tuesday by other supervisors, who said a third probe isn’t necessary.

Spitzer wrote a three-page letter to Reno last week about shoddy work performed on low-income housing and requesting that federal agents look into the situation because Housing and Urban Development funds were used.

But on Tuesday, Supervisor Charles V. Smith and Board Chairman William G. Steiner took issue with Spitzer’s letter, and suggested that the rest of the board send a second letter to Reno next week stating that a federal investigation is unneeded at this time.

Smith noted that both the Sheriff’s Department and district attorney’s office are still reviewing the alleged wrongdoing, and that the county is about to embark on a far-reaching operational audit of the Housing and Community Development Department, which oversees the rehabilitation program.

“I think it’s important that a letter be sent to the attorney general noting the fact that the board does not agree with . . . representations made in the letter,” Steiner added. “I’m hoping the other four members can bring some balance and perspective to the issue.”

Spitzer first called for a federal investigation in February during a board hearing into the rehabilitation program. But his proposal died because no other supervisor would support it. At the time, he vowed to make the request to Reno on his own.

Earlier this year, Spitzer toured homes where residents complained that contractors incorrectly installed water heaters, electrical wiring and performed generally substandard work.

At the February meeting, Spitzer grilled county officials about why an August report detailing the problems was not given to supervisors until January. He also accused County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier of withholding information from the board.

“Why is someone so alarmed at this request, when I’m only following up on what I said I was going to do in the first place?” Spitzer said.

The supervisor said he didn’t see how a federal probe could harm the sheriff’s and district attorney’s investigations, which Spitzer noted have not yet led to any legal action against the contractors.

“This county doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record in terms of monitoring its own affairs,” he added. “It would be a good thing for the rest of the world to know we are not afraid to open our books.”

Steiner and Smith both said they didn’t question Spitzer’s right to communicate with Reno and seek intervention from the federal government. But they did take issue with the tone of his letter and the way in which he handled the whole matter.

“His letter was very accusatory,” Smith said. “I think there is room for misinterpretation. A lot could be read into it unfairly.”

Steiner said he was “distressed” that the letter was not shown to fellow board members and the county counsel’s office before it was sent. Steiner said a county counsel review could have highlighted any legal problems in the letter.

But Robert Ault, a leader of the Committees of Correspondence government watchdog group, said he didn’t see a problem with Spitzer’s actions.

“It can only help to have a fresh set of eyes look at what is going on around here,” Ault said. “What can be the harm in that?”