Column: Signature-gathering firm owner wants allegedly errant employee prosecuted

Last week I looked at the legal ramifications of the dueling investigations by the Newport Beach City Council and the Orange County district attorney’s office into potentially fraudulent petition signatures gathered in the effort to recall Councilman Scott Peotter.

The D.A’.s office has the ability to prosecute and interview witnesses with certain legal protections; the city doesn’t. That’s why I urged Newport to back off and let the D.A. do its job.

This week I delve deeper into the paid petition gathering at the heart of all of this controversy.

The practice isn’t new, and the industry saw an increase in 2016, and is seeing another one now in 2018, as discontent among voters with their elected officials leaves referendums the only recourse.

But the number of signatures required to get referendums on ballots, in some cases tens of thousands, in others hundreds of thousands, makes the task almost impossible to accomplish without professional help.

Enter paid signature gathering companies like PCI Consultants Inc.

One of the “the largest and most successful full-service petition and field management firms in the country,” PCI was founded in 1992 by the company President Angelo Paparella.

PCI has “gathered more than 44 million signatures and qualified hundreds of state and local initiatives,” according to the website.

Now PCI is at the heart of the Newport controversy, as it worked for the recall committee seeking to remove Peotter.

Paparella and I talked Tuesday.

He explained his staff trains those hired to gather signatures, instructing them to stay on message and follow the rules.

The crew that worked the Peotter recall has worked for Paparella before in Irvine and in other cities without a problem.

Paparella said it’s PCI’s practice to verify signatures with state-of-the-art software before turning them in to the Orange County registrar’s office, but admitted that time restraints to qualify the Peotter recall for the ballot led to fraudulent signatures being missed.

But as soon as he was alerted there was a problem with 50 to 52 signatures of the 10,696 gathered, he was able to identify whom he believed to be responsible.

“It was only one person, and she didn’t even work the entire campaign,” he said.

Paparella was unfamiliar with the employee, who hadn’t worked for him before, and because she had gathered so few signatures, unfortunately fell under the radar.

“These things can happen,” he explained,” but it’s not the norm, less than 1%.”

And, he added, the bogus signatures weren’t the cause of the recall failure. Some 8,339 were validated, 106 shy of what was needed.

Paparella said when he saw the fraudulent signatures he acted quickly by identifying the person who turned them in and giving her pertinent information to the registrar.

He said he’s cooperating fully with the D.A.’s office.

“I have a vested interest in seeing this person prosecuted,” he said. “We want these people out of the business, doing jail time.”

When news broke the city had issued a subpoena for Paparella’s records, I asked if he’d received anything.

He hadn’t.

So where does the legal responsibility lie here?

Is it with the recall committee who hired PCI?

With PCI Inc.?

Or with the actual individual perpetrating the fraud?

Once again I consulted Mario Mainero, professor of academic achievement and executive director of bar preparation and academic achievement at Chapman University.

“All the code sections appear to be directed at individuals who use various fraud, concealment and use of artifices in the collection of signature,” he wrote. “It does not appear that there is any direct regulation of signature-gathering companies — probably because the sections prohibiting individuals from engaging in signature collection fraud are fairly comprehensive sections, and because in the end, the prosecution would be of individuals, not companies. So people who violate these laws are individually responsible, and are subject to both criminal fines and jail/prison time.”

The issue of paid signature gathering is certainly not just a Newport issue.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas sent out a press release June 25 warning voters to be cautious “as the election season brings a large influx of professional signature gatherers” and to know what they’re signing.

I also talked with attorney Phil Greer, who represents the Peotter Recall Committee and knows Paparella.

He tells me he met with Neal Kelley, the county registrar, the day fraudulent signatures were discovered, offering his and the committee’s full cooperation in the D.A.’s investigation.

So considering all involved are apparently more than willing cooperate with law enforcement and the registrar, plus an alleged perpetrator has potentially been identified, it seems to me the city investigation is unnecessary and a foolish waste of time and money.

That is unless, as I stated last week, the majority of this council, with the exception of members Diane Dixon and Jeff Herdman, is looking for retribution against those who dared attempt to recall one of their own.

BARBARA VENEZIA is an opinion columnist writing political and social commentary since 2007. She can be reached at bvontv1@gmail.com