SUPERVISORS TO WEIGH PROBE IN ELECTION OF INVESTMENT PANELISTS.

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

Los Angeles County supervisors will consider calling for an investigation Tuesday into allegations of campaign improprieties in an election for a county investment board. The panel is responsible for overseeing $27 billion in retirement funds for 120,000 current and former county employees.

Four of the candidates who ran for seats in October on the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association's Board of Retirement and Board of Investments have filed protests with the Board of Supervisors.

Three of those candidates - Simon Russin of Arcadia, Brian C. Brooks of Pomona and Malury Silberman of Alhambra - have accused North Hollywood resident Bruce Perelman of election improprieties.

Perelman has filed a protest against Russin, accusing him of similar election infractions.

In response, the executive office of the Board of Supervisors has recommended the supervisors defer certification of the election results for the two seats until the county Auditor-Controller can investigate the allegations and determine if such alleged election infractions affected the outcome of the election.

Board of Supervisors Deputy Executive Officer John McKibben, who oversaw the elections this month, said elections among the obscure boards have gone smoothly for years, without any similar brouhahas.

``Normally, these are fairly quiet things that don't get a great deal of attention,'' he said.

``Even the winners are protesting,'' said Gregg Rademacher, assistant executive officer of the association.

In the elections this month, Perelman was elected to the Board of Retirement with 43 percent of the vote. Brooks received 26 percent and Silberman, 21 percent.

Russin was re-elected to the Board of Investments, receiving 36 percent of the vote. Perelman, who also ran for the Board of Investments, lost with 34 percent of the vote.

``It was a hotly contested election,'' said Russin, who has served on both boards intermittently since the 1980s.

In protests filed with the county supervisors, Russin accused Perelman of soliciting campaign contributions from the association's money managers.

``In my opinion, this is a `pay to play' practice which is illegal and requires your investigation and a referral to the District Attorney's Office,'' Russin wrote to McKibben on Sept. 10.

Brooks, in a letter filed Oct. 19 with the county supervisors, wrote Perelman ``demanded campaign contributions on the grounds that when elected, he would be in a position to influence the selection process and would remember who had contributed, and who had not.''

Brooks also accused Perelman of using county telephones to campaign and improperly distributed campaign fliers through the county mail system inside some employee paychecks.

Perelman could not be reached for comment Friday, but he outlined his own allegations against Russin in a protest filed with the county supervisors.

In the protest, Perelman alleges ``flagrant, intentional and repeated cheating'' by Russin in the Board of Investments election, in which Russin beat Perelman by 2.8 percent of the vote.

Perelman alleges members of the county Employees for a Fair Retirement Plan group on behalf of Russin placed campaign fliers on employee desks and posted on the halls of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, violating campaign rules.

Perelman also alleges Russin included his county e-mail address on his campaign flier, showing that Russin conducted campaign related activities on county time and used his official authority to gain an unfair advantage.

``I did not put any materials on employee's desks,'' Russin said. ``I don't find anything inappropriate for me to include my e-mail address on my campaign materials. I think his comments are insignificant in comparison to the things he did in the election.''