Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Downey Councilman's Fate in Limbo After Mistrial

February 04, 1988|RICHARD HOLGUIN | Times Staff Writer

The conflict-of-interest trial of Downey Councilman James S. Santangelo raised more questions than it answered about the conduct of city officials before and after the 1984 vote to expand the city's redevelopment district along Firestone Boulevard.

Santangelo's fate was left in limbo this week after a Municipal Court jury deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of conviction and a judge declared a mistrial.

The holdout juror, who asked that he not be identified, said he was not convinced Santangelo stood to benefit from the expansion any more than the general public, a requirement for conviction.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Herbert Lapin said a retrial on the misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charge is likely, but the district attorney's office has until March 7 to decide. If convicted, Santangelo could face six months in jail and a $10,000 fine. He could also be barred from holding public office for four years.

Testimony About Events

During the trial, city officials and Downey residents gave highly contradictory testimony about key events leading up to the disputed July, 1984, vote.

In addition, testimony revealed a secret meeting in which Councilwoman Diane P. Boggs allegedly offered to change her vote opposing the redevelopment expansion so the city could circumvent a costly lawsuit challenging Santangelo's right to vote. The suit, filed by a group of property owners called Downey CARES, led a judge to invalidate the expansion in 1985 after finding that Santangelo had a conflict of interest.

The conflicting testimony centered on whether former City Atty. Carl Newton told Santangelo he could vote to expand the redevelopment district. Santangelo, 53, who heads a Downey real estate firm, owned property in the 386-acre expansion area and in the original redevelopment district.

Santangelo testified that he informed the city attorney of his property holdings, and that Newton told him moments before the disputed vote that he could participate.

"I leaned over and I think I said, 'Is it OK to vote?' " Santangelo testified. "His indication was, yes, I could vote."

But Newton contradicted Santangelo, testifying that he did not tell the councilman he could vote to expand the redevelopment district. The former city attorney also said Santangelo never told him he owned property in the redevelopment areas.

"Had I been aware of all of the facts . . . I would have advised him not to participate in the July 10 (1984) voting," Newton testified.

The area that included Santangelo's property was placed in the expansion zone because it lacked sufficient water flow for firefighting and because of poor traffic circulation, according to testimony. Property tax revenue generated by a redevelopment district often is used to make public improvements to remedy such problems. All told, the councilman's properties were worth from $1.2 million to $1.5 million, Santangelo testified during the trial.

The defense called as witnesses three Downey residents who partially corroborated Santangelo's testimony that he conferred with Newton.

The prosecution countered with testimony from Councilmen Robert G. Cormack and Randall R. Barb, who said they did not see or hear Santangelo lean over and ask Newton for advice before they voted on the 1984 expansion.

Former Councilman Bob Davila, who was sitting between Santangelo and Newton on the council dais at the time of the vote, did not testify. Lapin said he decided not to call Davila after the former councilman told him his memory of the events was foggy. The fifth council member, Boggs, testified only as a character witness for Santangelo and was not asked whether the councilman sought advice from Newton.

To further back the contention that Santangelo was acting on bad advice, defense attorney Leo Newton (no relation to Carl Newton) questioned the councilman about a closed meeting that took place in the months after the expansion vote. Santangelo said he did not remember the date of the meeting, but said it took place after Downey CARES filed suit.

Santangelo testified that the council discussed with Carl Newton whether Santangelo should withdraw his vote to approve the expansion, which passed 3 to 2. He also testified that Boggs agreed to change her vote so Santangelo could abstain and the expansion would still be approved by a 3-1 margin.

But, Santangelo said, Newton blocked the scheme, telling the council that Santangelo did not have a conflict of interest.

"Mrs. Boggs said that at that point she would be for redevelopment and we were advised we didn't have to (change the vote)," he said.

In his cross-examination of Santangelo, Lapin painted Santangelo and the other council members as participants in "back-room bargaining" that may have violated California law requiring public officials to openly debate most governmental issues.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|