FBI Now Rides Back Seat in Roth Inquiry : Politics: Agency took the lead in influence-peddling probe of county supervisor. Now it has become ‘invisible,’ some say.

SANTA ANA — When influence-peddling allegations first surfaced against Supervisor Don R. Roth last spring, it was the G-men at the FBI who took the lead, saying the agency wanted to determine if Roth had engaged in a quid pro quo to swap political favors for gifts.

No longer.

As dramatized by the actions taken against Roth by the Orange County district attorney’s office this past week, county prosecutors have now clearly moved to the forefront of the investigation, and those involved in the high-profile case have been left to wonder: Where’s the FBI?

“Our investigation is still open,” James P. Donckels, head of the FBI’s Orange County division, says.

Although Roth has denied any wrongdoing, federal and county authorities have independently pursued investigations into allegations that Roth may have dispensed political favors to local business people in exchange for thousands of dollars in gifts, loans and other things that went unreported in required state disclosure filings.

The FBI made headlines early in the case last April, publicly targeting Roth as part of an influence-peddling probe, and later seizing hundreds of corporate documents from a family that apparently provided Roth with rent-free living accommodations, until after the supervisor moved out and arranged for a back-dated rental agreement.

There has been little indication for months, however, of a continuing FBI interest in the case. And Dana Reed, one of the lawyers defending Roth, said last week: “I don’t know what the FBI has done. I don’t know what they define as active and open but no one has called us to say they’ve been contacted (by the federal agency). . . . They’re invisible.”

These might seem fighting words for an agency long famed for its work in fighting corruption, but Donckels is nonplussed.

“The FBI has been following the actions of the Orange County Grand Jury, and we will continue to do so to determine if there are any federal violations in which the FBI would have jurisdiction,” Donckels said. “We’ll have to monitor (the case) and wait and see what the grand jury uncovers.”

Several factors may explain the FBI’s wait-and-see attitude, officials say, including a deference to local authorities and a relative lack of resources to devote to a months-long local case. (The FBI has 63 Orange County agents, compared to about 330 district attorney’s investigators and lawyers.)

Reed even suggests that “turmoil” over accusations of ethical breaches against the FBI’s embattled director, William S. Sessions, who is under fire from the Justice Department, may dissuade local FBI investigators from taking on corruption cases if there is a fear of duplicating the work of other agencies.

The principal explanation for the FBI’s hands-off approach on the Roth case, however, appears to be a legal one--an inability to find any evidence of an outright bribe in the case, officials said.

District attorney’s investigators have looked at a broad range of issues that included alleged violations of state gift-reporting and conflict-of-interest laws.

But based on its investigation to date, the FBI is “dealing with a much more narrow issue,” focusing almost exclusively on any violation of federal bribery laws to warrant the agency’s involvement, one source familiar with the case said. Lesser violations would be left to local authorities.

The FBI’s inquiry has centered on Roth’s relationship with the Doughers, a Laguna Beach family that owns and operates one of the biggest mobile home park networks in Southern California.

After Roth broke up with his wife in mid-1990, the family allowed him to live in an Anaheim mobile home park without paying rent, until after he moved out 17 months later. Roth claimed he had always intended to pay rent and pointed as evidence to an Aug. 15, 1990, lease agreement. But Donald J. Dougher later acknowledged the lease had been backdated by more than a year, and documents later showed that it was done at Roth’s instigation.

Several of the Doughers also hosted Roth on at least three trips to Santa Catalina Island in 1990 and 1991, and company expense statements and receipts seized by the FBI indicated that Roth had talked with family members on one trip about an upcoming Board of Supervisors vote. In December, 1991, Roth voted with the rest of the board to overturn a Planning Commission decision that had blocked a $5-million housing project on Dougher land.

In gift-disclosure statements required by the state, Roth did not report either the trips or what amounted to an $8,500 loan in deferred rent, as several legal experts say was required under state law.

Last April, an FBI spokesman acknowledged to The Times that the agency was seeking to determine whether Roth had accepted the gifts as part of a quid pro quo to aid the Doughers politically.

Agents had gotten a tip about the Roth-Dougher relationship. After securing Justice Department approval from Washington as required in public corruption cases, the FBI pursued the matter from there.

Roth dismissed the FBI’s interest as “foolish” and groundless, according to one county official who spoke with him.

But the agency acted quickly nonetheless, interviewing people in the Dougher camp, securing a federal grand jury search warrant and poring over corporate documents and family campaign contributions. Donald Dougher, battling with family members for control of the family holdings, also agreed to cooperate with the FBI in exchange for what his lawyer described as an immunity offer.

The FBI has said little about its case in recent months. But by most indications, the agency has not found solid evidence of the quid pro quo it sought, according to those involved in the case.

Nor, for that matter, has the district attorney’s office.

County prosecutors are known to be focusing on two Roth votes in particular: the 1991 rezoning of the Dougher property, and a 1990 motion he made to shelve a plan to require fire-prevention sprinklers in all new homes, a measure that was vigorously opposed by builders who appear to have done favors for Roth.

Investigators are seeking to determine whether the sprinkler vote was influenced by Roth’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in free or undervalued home improvements from the Presley Cos., a major local developer.

The most direct link between the improvements and the sprinkler vote is Roth’s ex-wife, Jackie Roth. In interviews with investigators, she has alleged that Roth told her the work “wasn’t going to cost anything” because Presley needed the supervisor’s support on the upcoming sprinkler vote. But this allegation might not be allowed in court because of marital privilege that guards the privacy of conversations between a husband and wife, lawyers say.

The district attorney’s office did not allege any acts of bribery in an affidavit filed last week in securing a search warrant for Roth’s bank records. Rather, prosecutors said the two-term supervisor is suspected of a litany of other felonies, including perjury, fraud, theft, misuse of public funds, conspiracy to obstruct justice and others.

The district attorney’s affidavit also raised a new allegation in the case: that Roth had falsified a home loan mortgage application, wrongly claiming that he made $4,000 a month as a consultant in an apparent attempt to meet minimum income requirements for approval of the loan.

Falsification of a mortgage loan can be prosecuted as a federal offense, lawyers say, but the FBI’s Donckels declined to comment on whether or not this allegation might be pursued by his federal agents.

“The FBI has been very helpful,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Guy Ormes, the county’s lead prosecutor on the Roth case, who met with a federal agent on the matter last year. “But I don’t know that there is a real future expectation (of the agency’s involvement) in this case. Who knows, that could change depending on what happens tomorrow.”