NEWS ANALYSIS -- Are Garofalo, Hutton playing the blame game?

Theresa Moreau

HUNTINGTON BEACH -- Is there a rift growing between City Atty. Gail

Hutton and Mayor Dave Garofalo? Since Hutton began her investigation of

the mayor’s possible conflicts of interests, they have been invoking each

other’s name quite frequently.

Garofalo has said he has always sought -- and followed -- the city

attorney’s advice on matters involving his publishing business, which

includes the Conference & Visitors Bureau’s visitors guide. Hutton has

said she counted on the mayor to give her the correct information so she

could form a valid opinion.

But both said things are still on business-friendly terms,

“Dave, I believe, is a well-meaning public official. I think he tries

hard to do the right thing,” Hutton said of the mayor.

And Garofalo said the same of Hutton.

“I think that she’s doing her job, and I have no qualms or quarrels

with her,” he said.

The two have been seen as political allies in the past. Hutton

contributed $275 to Garofalo’s 1998 council campaign, and Garofalo voted

several times in ways that favored Hutton, including a vote against an

audit of the city attorney’s office.

However, since the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, the

Orange County district attorney’s office and the Orange County Grand Jury

have launched investigations into Garofalo’s alleged conflict-of-interest

violations, the mayor and the city attorney seemingly have been trying to

foist the blame on the other.

When in public, and especially in front of a camera, Garofalo tends to

clear his path of any possible wrongdoing by sweeping the dirt Hutton’s

way.

In a press conference, the mayor explained away his voting record on

the city’s Conference & Visitors Bureau budget and other matters before a

phalanx of reporters. He shielded himself from blame by turning the sword

on the city attorney.

“The record shows that each and every time I voted on the budget for a

nonprofit that I was either at one point on the board of directors of or

later on the advisory board of, I requested an opinion from the city

attorney’s office on whether or not I could vote,” he said.

“How many times did [the bureau budget] come up? Five times in five

years, or three times? I’m going to reasonably guess, since we’ve been in

a two-year budget for two times, that we voted on that allocation three

times. Once I abstained under the city attorney’s advice, and twice I did

not under the city attorney’s advice. That’s what I did.”

Then, during a recently televised interview on KOCE-TV’s “Real Orange”

program, Garofalo again invoked Hutton’s name.

“Every time the city attorney made a recommendation to me on what I

should vote on or not vote on or to transfer an asset or not transfer an

asset, I complied with all those requests,” Garofalo said. “So I know in

my heart there was no conflict of interest.”

Meanwhile, Hutton’s camp is putting forth its own effort to clear away

any notion that the city attorney’s office has been negligent in its

investigation into Garofalo’s alleged conflicts of interest.

Hutton’s office announced June 20 that it would be investigating the

contract between the Conference & Visitors Bureau and the Local News to

determine if the contract to publish the visitors guide violates the

state’s conflict-of-interest laws, which prohibit self-dealing.

But it wasn’t until Aug. 1, a week after Hutton handed over her

investigation to the district attorney’s office and the FPPC, that she

released a memo with her findings, ordering the visitors bureau to

immediately terminate its contract with the mayor’s company, David P.

Garofalo & Associates.

Hutton blamed the delay on the slow trickle of facts into her office.

The city attorney has also said she can only request an opinion from

the FPPC based on the information Garofalo has given her. Hutton does not

have the power to subpoena documents.

“You have to have the accurate facts,” she said. “Based on the facts

given to me, I’ve relied on the truthfulness of my council members.”

The city attorney maintains it is not her duty to prosecute a council

member who has previously, in confidence, sought her advice.

Hutton has cited a 1988 opinion from the state’s attorney general

explaining that if a city attorney and council member have an

attorney-client privilege, that cannot be breached.

“The attorney general said that there is an attorney-client privilege,

and it’s improper for a city attorney having dealt with the problem to

turn around and commence an enforcement action,” Hutton said Friday.

“There was some ethical consideration that would hamstring me, and the

attorney general would prohibit it.”

The opinion stipulates that any breach of the attorney-client

privilege would “violate constitutional due process.”

Hutton has been criticized for not maintaining a stronger role as a

legal watchdog during Garofalo’s terms on the dais.

In September 1998, Hutton advised Garofalo to abstain from voting on

advertisers with his publications. However, minutes from council meetings

show he continued to vote against Hutton’s warning.

Paul D’Alessandro, assistant city attorney, sent a memo to the

Independent after reports that Garofalo continued to vote even when

Hutton had advised him to abstain.

“Naturally, when we render advice, we expect that our recommendations

will be followed. However, we cannot guarantee that our advice will be

followed each time it is provided,” D’Alessandro wrote. “The

responsibility for following our advice is borne by each individual

official or employee in question, and they are encouraged to seek their

own legal counsel and/or written opinion of the FPPC, who have the

responsibility for advising and enforcing the Political Reform Act.”

Garofalo steadily maintains that his voting record is unblemished.

“What idiot would vote knowing that he’s potentially violating the

state law if he doesn’t have to vote? I know I’m not stupid,” Garofalo

said on KOCE. “I know in my heart I didn’t do anything wrong.”

City officials have mixed opinions on whether there is a fissure

between the two parties.

Councilman Ralph Bauer, who was elected in 1994, said he has noticed

the process for requests for advice has become more formal.

“I think at least, in part, Gail is now taking this far more seriously

than she did before. She’s an elected official. She has to take into

consideration that she is going to be judged when she runs again,” Bauer

said. “Friendship stops at City Hall steps. You’ve got to do the right

thing. Ultimately, there’s a higher authority: integrity.”

On the other hand, Councilwoman Pam Julien said she has seen no

change.

“I haven’t noticed any rift,” Julien said. “I think it’s business as

usual. Everyone’s just doing their job. I haven’t noticed anything out of

the ordinary.”