Vandegrift Faces More Disclosure Issues
Councilman’s Attorney Says Client Will Amend Statement

Tulare - Attorney Mike Lampe has sent a second letter to the Tulare County District Attorney's Office outlining three more instances in which he contends Vice Mayor Phil Vandegrift failed to report financial dealings on his Statement of Economic Interests.

The transactions involved Vandegrift's purchase and immediate re-sale of three lots in the Vintage Square development on the southwest corner of Prosperity Avenue and Laspina Street in November and December, 2004, immediately after he was elected to the City Council.

Vandegrift should have reported his interest in those properties, even if he owned them for only minutes, and he should also have reported the $40,000 profit he made on the three double escrows, Lampe said.

Acting on behalf of former Tulare Mayor Tom Drilling, Lampe's latest letter to the D.A. regarding Vandegrift was sent on Aug. 12. An earlier letter dated July 1, maintained Vandegrift had failed to report five deeds of trust totaling $600,000 between 2005 and 2009.

Vandegrift is combing through his business files to see if there are other holdings or transactions he should have disclosed on his forms and then he will file an amended statement, his attorney Brad Pierce said Monday.

“I don't want him to have to do it [file an amendment] more than once,” Pierce said.

Pierce agreed the transactions should have been reported, but he said Lampe's letter, which included testimony given by Councilman Richard Ortega in a deposition, was “not done in a neutral fashion.”

“It looks like he's trying to make a point, but there is no point there,” Pierce said, adding Vandegrift did nothing wrong regarding the double escrow transactions and his only mistake was in “not filling out the forms correctly.”

Lampe's letter to Cline included what he characterized as “quite remarkable” testimony by Ortega, an investor in the Vintage Square commercial subdivision, during an Aug. 3 deposition taken in Lampe's office.

Ortega, when shown documents related to the sale and resale of the three lots, appeared surprised, Lampe said. The councilman testified he was unaware the property was sold first to Vandegrift and then resold to the people he had understood to have purchased the land in the first place, a transcript of the deposition indicated.

Pierce, who said Ortega may have forgotten Vandegrift was involved, said the testimony was not relevant to the financial disclosure issue.

Asked why he included a portion of the Ortega deposition in the letter to the D.A., when it does not appear to be directly related to the disclosure issues, Lampe said:
“I have no explanation for it. I just find it remarkable that Councilman Ortega was unaware of the fact you have these double escrows and was ultimately misled as to whom the buyers of these properties were.”

While the purchase and resale of the properties by Vandegrift did not occur until after the election, escrows were opened in May 2004 when the sellers agreed to give him a volume discount if he purchased multiple properties, which he did after finding buyers, Pierce said, stressing again that these details are not relevant to the disclosure issue.

Lampe and Pierce said it is up to the district attorney to decide what to do about the disclosure issue.

It's not a criminal matter and the D.A. can take civil action or kick the matter over to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Lampe said.

Pierce said he did not expect any further action once Vandegrift amends his statements.

“This is not related to any hidden or covert deal,” he said.

Lampe also has filed a civil lawsuit against Vandegrift, charging he violated Section 1090 of the California Government code when he accepted $200,000 from Hidden Oak Development company after it sold property to the city for $5.24 million.

Vandegrift, who did not vote on the sale or participate in council discussions regarding it, has said the money was not compensation for the sale to the city but for years of work he had done for Hidden Oak regarding the Cartmill Avenue and M Street property prior to the city's involvement.

Section 1090 prohibits public officials from benefiting either directly or indirectly from a contract entered into by the city.

The above story is the property of The Valley Voice Newspaper and may not be reprinted without explicit permission in writing from the publisher.