PAC Called Potent Tool for Powerful Lobbyist : Insider: O.C. business advocate is also a committee treasurer. Critics say he undermines political standards.

Over the past decade, Lyle A. Overby has quietly become one of Orange County’s most influential and respected political operatives.

He holds no elected office. Candidates don’t seek his endorsement, he is not a developer, and you hardly ever see his name in the newspaper.

What makes Overby special is his skill as a lobbyist--by all accounts he’s one of the best.

And unlike most in his profession, he is also treasurer of a political action committee, a position that has enabled him to help steer $9,400 in contributions to members of the Board of Supervisors since 1986, according to a Times Orange County Edition investigation of campaign finance reports.

Although the contributions have been perfectly legal, they have made Overby the object of debate, with critics accusing him of using the PAC to enhance his political influence while maneuvering him around a county conflict-of-interest law. That law, known as TINCUP, limits the personal contributions of lobbyists but says nothing about PACs or their donations.

“This is a clear way of enhancing his power,” said Robert M. Stern, co-director and general counsel of the California Commission on Campaign Financing. “What’s the difference of his handing over a check from his committee and handing over a personal check? He gets the credit.”

Overby, 39, declined to comment in detail.

“I don’t set out to undermine TINCUP,” he said during a brief telephone interview in March. “Your whole premise there I could take great umbrage at.”

What is undisputed is that Overby does well for himself. He gets impressive clients--the architectural firm Leason Pomeroy Associates, the Santa Margarita Co., a major South County developer, and McDonald’s Restaurants are just a few. Aided by Overby, those businesses and others have won lucrative county contracts and project approvals during the past five years.

“Lyle possesses an exceptionally easygoing style,” said Stephen Blanchard, an aide to Supervisor Thomas F. Riley. “He’s willing to work a project through the system, and he knows how the staff will handle it. That makes him very effective.”

Other county officials agree. Supervisor Don R. Roth, though noting that he has no favorite among lobbyists, calls Overby “a very good man, and good at his job.” Another high-ranking official, who asked not to be identified, said simply that advice from Overby “is solid as gold.”

Overby also rubs elbows with top officials: Last spring, when a group of developers gathered to meet an Assembly candidate at a restaurant owned by the chairman of the Orange County Planning Commission, Overby paid half the $400 dinner tab. The district attorney’s office subsequently investigated two commissioners to see if their presence was a conflict of interest. No charges were filed because prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence. Overby was never a target of the investigation.

Associates describe Overby, who holds a business degree from Cal State Fullerton, as a quiet, private man with a dry and engaging sense of humor.

He’s married, the father of two, and he has long experience in and around Orange County government. In the 1970s, Overby worked in the offices of two of the county’s most powerful politicians: supervisors Robert W. Battin and Ralph A. Diedrich, both of whom eventually lost their posts amid corruption scandals. Overby came through unscathed.

Developing his lobbying business was rough at the start, Overby once told a reporter. It took a year or so to establish his name.

Since then, he’s mostly operated with a low profile. In 1989, he surprised some of his associates by running for Santa Ana City Council. Some critics used his lobbying business against him in that campaign, charging that his profession could make it difficult for him to objectively represent the city.

Overby disagreed, stressing that he had avoided taking on clients with Santa Ana business. In his candidate’s statement Overby referred only obliquely to his profession: “Throughout my professional career, my advice on how to solve problems in government has been sought by individuals, public agencies and businesses,” he wrote.

With the exception of that race--which Overby lost, but not by much--most of his work has gone on behind the scenes, in and around the County Hall of Administration on behalf of developers and other clients.

In 1986, he signed the documents that created the Committee for Improved Public Policy (Home Building Industry), which was founded to “support candidates and ballot measures that put good public policy ahead of the interests of individual pressure groups . . . (and) to dilute the influence of pressure groups such as public employee unions, anti-development organizations and extremely large corporations,” according to its statement of organization.

The inner workings of the committee are not found in its public disclosure statements, but it and Overby are deeply intertwined. He has served as its treasurer since its creation, a post that makes him responsible for administering its budget and signing its public filings. He and his lobbying firm have made contributions to the committee, and he has received money from it for professional management and consulting services.

Overby would not discuss his exact role with the committee, but Carl Kymla, the committee’s vice chairman, indicated that Overby is the central force in the organization. “He’s kind of running this thing,” Kymla said.

Kymla also said he did not believe that the committee’s original chairman, Willard Harris--the only other committee officer listed in its 1986 statement of organization--was still involved in its operation. Harris could not be reached for comment, nor could William Phillips, who succeeded Harris as the committee’s chairman, according to records.

Overby’s is the only name that appears on the committee’s regular disclosure statements, and he and the PAC share the same phone number.

With Overby as its treasurer, the PAC has served as the conduit for considerable, unregulated cash contributions to the members of the Board of Supervisors.

That’s not because the law meant to encourage such a thing. In fact, TINCUP includes a provision to force anyone who lobbies for a project before the supervisors or the County Planning Commission to curb personal contributions or be publicly labeled as an influence broker. Once tagged with that label, influence brokers must limit their contributions and disclose their private client lists.

That happened to Overby once: In 1986, he contributed a total of $500 to two board members, enough to top the limit--which today is $468. So in 1987 Overby had to give the county clerk a list of his clients, his contributions and a 3-by-4-inch photograph to place on his “county influence broker” registration form.

It was apparently not a process that Overby enjoyed, since on the same day he was forced to file as an influence broker, he also took steps to have himself removed from the list.

After submitting the notice required to be removed, it takes a year for an influence broker’s name to drop off the county roll, during which time the broker’s contributions must be registered and limited.

During Overby’s year on the list, he had to hold his personal campaign contributions below $851 for all five supervisors combined. He did, and as a result no longer appears on the official roll of “influence brokers.”

But while Overby has been tight with his personal cash, the Committee for Improved Public Policy has been generous.

In addition to donating to county supervisors, the committee contributed money to state legislators, local candidates and ballot measures. All of those contributions, critics say, help weave the committee and its treasurer into the fabric of Southern California government.

“He buys influence,” charged Ralph Allen, a prominent Santa Ana architect who has gone up against Overby and his clients for government contracts. “I can’t believe he’s allowed to.”

Unlike Allen, most of those interviewed for this article noted that, as a lobbyist, Overby is expected to employ the tools of his trade--so they found little fault in what he does. What several did question, however, is the law that lets him do it.

Because that law never mentioned PACs, the committee can hand over checks to the supervisors without them being forced to abstain from votes when the committee’s backers--or Overby’s clients--have projects before the board.

During 1986 and 1987, for instance, Shapell Industries, a residential developer, contributed $35,000 to the committee. The company was busily processing plans through the county government through the late 1980s, but despite its contributions to the committee--and the committee’s contributions to the board--no supervisor was ever obliged to abstain from Shapell matters.

Last year, the supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of the Santa Margarita Co.’s controversial, 2,500-unit Las Flores project in the face of vocal opposition from local environmentalists. Overby did not represent the company at public hearings--top company executives, including President Anthony R. Moiso, attended the Planning Commission sessions on Las Flores. But he has served as a lobbyist and consultant to the firm for years, according to company officials and a 1987 disclosure statement filed by Overby.

His other clients also have a habit of getting what they want.

On April 21, 1987, Leason Pomeroy Associates won the $3.4-million contract to design the Thomas F. Riley Terminal at John Wayne Airport. Leason Pomeroy, which had never designed an airport before, was an Overby client.

On March 28, 1989, McDonald’s was awarded a John Wayne Airport concession, a highly sought-after stretch of countertop that had been coveted by Carl Karcher’s chain of fast-food restaurants, Carl’s Jr. McDonald’s was an Overby client.

“Lyle helped McDonald’s understand how to put together the RFP (request for proposal) in a way that would be well received,” one county staffer said. “They did a much better job of it than Carl’s Jr.”

Overby also enjoyed the evident esteem of at least two Orange County supervisors: When he ran for Santa Ana City Council in 1989, a few months after the McDonald’s vote, Roth and Thomas F. Riley made modest contributions to Overby’s campaign; three years earlier, Overby’s firm had loaned Roth $5,000 for his first run at supervisor.

Still, Overby has critics in and out of Orange County government, and campaign reform leaders such as Shirley L. Grindle, who unofficially monitors TINCUP, worry that the committee provides him with a vehicle to give with impunity.

“I think Overby is pretty decent,” said Grindle, “but as far as I’m concerned, what he’s doing with his committee is over the line.”

Allen, whose architectural firm was beat out by Overby client Leason Pomeroy for the airport terminal job, is among the fiercest of Overby’s critics, and he’s one of the few willing to air his disagreements publicly.

In fact, Allen has gone so far as to draft an anti-lobbyist resolution, which he hopes to present to the Board of Supervisors for its approval.

After the “whereases,” Allen’s resolution cuts to the chase: “All county influence brokers shall report the source and size of all funds paid to them to influence the awarding of architectural contracts by the county.”

Disclosure, Allen said, would be consistent with federal law and would expose the sums spent to influence the outcome of county decisions.

“I think taxpayers should have the right to know that information,” Allen said.

Times staff writer Mark Landsbaum provided the computer research for this report, with clerical assistance from Darren Tass.

How TINCUP Tries to Regulate Lobbyists

Although he is no longer considered a “county influence broker,” lobbyist Lyle A. Overby was forced to register under the county campaign law as one in 1987.

* This label is attached to any person who is paid to lobby the county Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission and tops a contribution limit during a 12-month period.

* Two 1986 contributions, each of $250, forced Overby to register. He filed for termination the same day, but it takes a year to get off the influence broker list.

* Once registered, influence brokers must disclose their clients. Overby listed eight firms.

Under TINCUP, Overby had to supply the county with the information and photograph on this form. He was required to remain on the list for one year, but that has since expired.

Source: County registrar of voters’ influence broker file.

TRACKING THIS SERIES * SUNDAY: The impact that unregulated political action committees have had on campaign contributions to the Board of Supervisors.

* MONDAY: County employee unions give thousands to the supervisors, who dole out millions in taxpayer-funded salaries.

* TUESDAY: The transfer technique lets money given to one politician find its way to another.

* TODAY: How a lobbyist uses a PAC to give thousands to supervisors, who then weigh the fate of his clients.

* THURSDAY: Companies with their own PACs give at will and still stay within the law.

* FRIDAY: Reformers and supervisors agree that the law is broken but disagree over how to fix it.