Did Debbie Carona Sell Her Fair Board Vote?

Did Debbie Carona, in her capacity as an OC Fair Board member, advocate for TelPhil Entreprises to keep their lucrative contract to run the OC Marketplace because TelPhil gave to husband Mike Carona's campaign?

The Los Angeles Times would like you to think so. And obviously the U.S. Attorney does, as well.

I don't know the answer, but I think it's very unlikely.

The LAT article focuses on Debbie Carona's role when the Fair Board put the OC Marketplace contract out to bid for the first time in years. TelPhil owner Bob Teller started the swap meet in 1969 and has operated it ever since, and has become enormously rich as a result.

I spoke today with my friend (and Red County/Placer editor) Jeff Flint about the issue. Jeff represented Delaware North, which was trying to win the contract away from TelPhil in 2003.

Jeff said getting Debbie Carona's vote was never part of their strategy. It was clear to the Delaware North team she was a strong supporter of keeping the swap meet contract with TelPhil, and that Peggy Haidl's vote would follow that of her friend Debbie. TelPhil was very well-entrenched, and Jeff says they knew Delware North's attempt to wrest away the swap meet contract was an uphill fight.

But Jeff also said that as far as he could tell, Mike and Debbie Carona had a genuine friendship with the Tellers. And I'm that's probably true, and Debbie Carona's advocacy for TelPhil stemmed in large part from that factor.

Look at it this way. Bob Teller and his family have built the most successful outdoor markeptlace in the U.S. It is a very lucrative business. And it's operated on property owned by the government. That means Bob Teller and family have every incentive to develop and maintain excellent relationships with the OC Fair Board members who hold the fate of his business in their hands. He's a businessman, and despite being a Republican, Teller works to stay on the good side of the elected and influential who can help him keep his business - regardless of their partisan affiliation. When Republican Pete Wilson was appointing OC Fair Board members, TelPhil supported Wilson. When Democrat Gray Davis was doing the appointing, TelPhil supported Davis.

Back to Debbie Carona and the 2003 swap meet contract. I don't think her advocating for TelPhil represented a quid pro quo for campaign donations to her husband. Think about it: the year before, Carona was unopposed for re-election. He was the single-most popular office holder in the county, and at the time I think had every intention of keeping his promise not to run for a third term. He didn't need TelPhil's campaign donations.

That's not to say Debbie Carona was right or that Delaware North shouldn't have won the contract. I don't know Debbie Carona, but most people in politics have a strong tendency to be loyal and protective of those with whom they have friendships, and in this instance my belief is that's what was driving Debbie Carona's support to renewing TelPhil's contract.

UPDATE (11/20/07): I get the impression some readers think I am defending Debbie Carona's advocacy for TelPhil during the 2003 bid competition, and endorsing the OC Fair Board's actions in that process.

I am not.

The Los Angeles Times article is written to lead the reader to conclude Mrs. Carona's actions were a quid pro quo for previous TelPhil-affiliated campaign donations to her husband.

I simply don't agree that was the case.

I thought I was pretty clear, but apparently not enough for some. For example, Art Pedroza's response demonstrates his continuing difficulty in the area of reading comprehension, but it does give him the opportunity to bang out one of his characteristic Tourette Syndrome posts.

For the sake of the hard-of-reasoning, I'll make it simple:

I don't think the Fair Board run a truly open bidding process. The deck was stacked against Delaware North from the beginning. The Fair Board's decision to limit how much revenue they could receive from the OC Marketplace was not only stupid but a blatant move to freeze out any competition to TelPhil.

TelPhil created the swap meet in 1969, built it into the success it is and has run it ever since. Agencies, big or small, have a strong tendency to stick with the vendors they know. As long as the vendor is doing a good job, they will almost never fire them.

Delaware North best hope in their upstream swim to win the contract was to offer the OC Fair a significantly bigger cut of the revenues. By barring themselves from receiving more than 40% of swap meet revenues, the Fair Board dealt Delaware North -- or any potential TelPhil competitor -- out of the game.

I think Debbie Carona and the other directors who voted with her were wrong in the way they handled the bidding process. But I don't think her actions in 2003-2004 were motivated by $4,850 in campaign contributions to Sheriff Carona's campaign over four years from 1997 to 2000.

UPDATE 2 (11/29/07): Judging from this post, looks like Steve Greenhut needs to join Pedroza in reading comprehension class. Or maybe it's a case of editorial Humpty-Dumptyism.

Comments

[Bob]

Thank you for a more unbiased retelling of the facts. I don't understand why the newspapers are so biased against the Caronas.

[Flowerszzz]

Teller has had the contract for a long time and I think it has only gone to bid one time in all those years. She is not the only fair board member to do this, it was going on long before she was even on the fair board.

[interestingly enough]

Well, it could be that the Tellers themselves said they'd only met the Caronas at a cocktail party, and now Flint is spinning it that they really were friends.

Can one of you conservatives please explain to me how in good sense the board voted to LIMIT the amount of money the swap meet vendor could give the fair board?

[Jeff Flint]

IE:

I am the last person to be "spinning" for Teller or the Caronas, since I was working for the other side. I am quoted in today's Register follow up asking the same question you did...why would the board limit their income.

They had a reason at the time...it didn't make sense then either.

The "spin" is Teller, retroactively, trying to distance themselves from the Caronas.

[Tim Whitacre]

There is no way to rationally defend Mrs. Carona's actions here. Because of the clear conflict of interest in voting on a matter in which she or her husband has been enriched by the benefactor of her vote, she should have recused herself from the matter. That was the only proper course of action.

To not do so was unethical and improper regardless of the obvious amount of support the Teller family has shown the OCGOP over the years. No amount of explanation makes her actions justifiable.

[Jubal]

I don't defend Mrs. Carona's actions in the TelPhil/Delware North competition for the swap meet contract.

But the "conflict of interest" charge just isn't credible.

First off, the contribution weren't to Debbie Carona; they were to her husband's campaign.

Secondly, when the OC Marketplace contract was put out to bid, it had been at least three years since Mike Carona's campaign had received a TelPhil-affiliated contributions.

There are ample grounds for criticizing Debbie Carona on this issue without latching on to this red herring -- that her actions in 2003-2004 were governed by $4,850 in contributions received during a four year period from 1997-2000.