SD COASTAL ALLIANCE

MISSION

POLITICS

ETHICS QUESTIONS?

SCORECARDS
How did Council Vote?

ISSUES

NEWS

SCHOOLS

REDEVELOPMENT
ABUSE

ENVIRONMENTAL "Fs"

AIRPORT

STRIP CLUB TRIAL

COMMENTARY

LINKS/CONTACTS

Archives:
PENSION COVER-UP

MAYOR RACE '05"

PAST POLITICS

POLITICAL ARCHIVES:

Lets do away with elections!
Councilman Peters Wins for Most Outraguos “Quote of 05 ”
Excerpt: April 26, 2005, New York Times included a quote by Councilman Scott Peters: "In an interview, Mr. Peters said it was too early to think about running for office. But he said he preferred that there be an appointment rather than a special election. "An election means a lot of exaggeration and insults and defamation and creates a terrible environment in which to make hard decisions," he said."

Mayor Sanders & District 1 Councilman Peters Ignores the La Jolla Community… in the Giveaway of Publicly Owned Site 653 
A one time sale without any future revenue stream to the City of 23,000 square feet of centrally located public land in La Jolla  for $940,000.
 May 9, 2006 final vote was 6-2. The two opposing votes were Brian Maienschein and Donna Frye. Donna† has steadfastly viewed this as a Land Use and community planning issue.
  Mr. Peters, reasons for failing to support his community planning groups, and† changing his purported stance from 2002, were beyond comprehension!
  Even though Hillel's project was approved, the conditions† would not have been imposed had council members not received so many letters/faxes/emails and phone calls.Had this not been a political decision, Sherri Lightners superb presentation of the issues on the docket would have carried the vote - but as we† audience saw, there was much that had happened before people spoke.
  Please remember to contact Mayor Sanders who made the decision to allow the exclusive sale in spite of prior council actions. This was a deeply troubling Precedent that the city is continuing in the old Murphy/ Golding footsets of business as usual.   No Third Story
Voice OF San Diego, May 5, 2006 -- 4:02 p.m.
 ˆIn an uproarious meeting of the La Jolla Community Planning Association yesterday, the association narrowly rejected a motion that had called for a loosening of the building regulation in parts of La Jolla, which would allow developers to build mixed-used projects three stories high.
 The meeting had sparks a-plenty.
 First, Council President Scott Peters, whose district includes La Jolla, made a personal appearance at the meeting to call for a rejection of the motion. Instead, Peters proposed working with independent experts to figure out what's best for the neighborhood.
 "As volunteers, residents and representatives, our goal and our mission is to protect the charm, feel and character of La Jolla," Peters said. "We can't pretend that change will not happen. We can understand the forces that bring change and we can figure out how to manage that change."
 But the people of La Jolla wanted their debate. And they got it. Three hours of it.
 The debate was heated, according to my good friend Travis Hunter, a journalist for the La Jolla Light newspaper who attended the debate. There were heckles and jeers from the crowd, which was overwhelmingly against the motion.
 Enter City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
 Aguirre showed up at the meeting and, as Hunter put it, "did the Aguirre show." He was greeted by hoots and whistles from the crowd. Aguirre wagged the proverbial finger at the planning association and told them that they were in danger of violating conflict-of-interest rules. Architects Mark Lyon and Michael Morton, who proposed the changes to the rules, are both members of the community planning group. Lyon currently has a project pending that would greatly benefit from a rule change that would allow three stories.
 The planning association at first wanted to shelve the issue for a vote at another time, but Pennie Carlos of the Bird Rock Community Council put pressure on them to put the issue to a vote then and there.
 The association's president then said the panel would have a vote on whether to reject the rule changes.
 One planning association member, fed up with the heckling and the jeering, stood up, resigned on the spot, and stormed out.
 Another said he would vote against dismissing the rule changes because he refused to submit to "mob rule."
 Lyon recused himself from the vote. Morton didn't. With Morton's vote, the vote was tied at 5-5, but as the crowd grew more and more hostile over his participation in the voting -- as a local architect, critics have argued Morton stands to gain much from the rule changes -- Morton eventually recused himself.
 And the three stories debacle was over. For now.
 The La Jolla Planning Association is only an advisory body. The issue will probably be voted on by the San Diego City Council.
 I, for one, can't wait to see what happens then.
— WILL CARLESS

Embattled real estate director resigns
S.D. council members had called for ouster
By Ronald W. Powell, September 27, 2005
William Griffith; The head of San Diego's Real Estate Assets Department resigned yesterday, three days after three City Council members called for his ouster following questions about the agency's handling of city property and leases.
 William Griffith, 43, submitted his resignation to City Manager Lamont Ewell, who accepted it. Griffith's last day will be Oct. 28.
"To leave the organization at a time when the city needs all the best efforts it can muster is a difficult decision for me, yet I depart knowing that I have made important contributions to the city's success," Griffith wrote in his resignation letter.
 Contacted by telephone, he declined to say whether he was voluntarily leaving the job that paid him $140,297 in 2004. Asked what his plans are after leaving the city, Griffith said, "I don't know."
Griffith's oversight of the department and its 35 employees came under scrutiny following a report Sept. 18 in The San Diego Union-Tribune that detailed how the city lacks a precise inventory of its properties and doesn't know how they are all used.
 The inventory included properties the city sold long ago and did not include acreage that it now owns. One house it owns is a rat-infested eyesore among million-dollar properties in La Jolla, and one lot bequeathed to the city to benefit Balboa Park was strewn with trash.
  That led council members Donna Frye, Brian Maienschein and Tony Young to call Friday for his dismissal.
 Yesterday, Maienschein said Griffith's departure "will be good for San Diego."
  "It's a department that needs to be changed significantly and reformed significantly, and a fresh start and a new approach there will be a good thing," Maienschein said.
  Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins noted that the new mayor who assumes office in December will have the power to hire and fire the real estate assets director and other executives. Until a successor is chosen, she said, an outsider should be hired to compile an accurate inventory of the city's real estate assets.
 Councilman Scott Peters declined to weigh in with his views on the resignation. "That's not my call," he said. "I think Will felt it was best for the city."
  Ewell declined to discuss the reasons for Griffith's departure because it is a personnel matter. However, he complimented Griffith for nearly doubling lease revenue for the city during his tenure.
 Griffith was hired in 1993 as a deputy city attorney assigned to real estate assets, development services, and parks and recreation. In 1998, he was named acting director of the real estate department before being promoted to director the next year.
  In his resignation letter, he thanked his staff members and praised their work in boosting annual revenues and finding sites for new libraries, fire stations and a freeway.
  "We have achieved these results despite the fact that we often had limited resources," Griffith wrote.
  Griffith has said that lease revenue increased from $33.8 million a year in fiscal 1998 to $58.7 million in fiscal 2005.
  "I'll miss his entrepreneurial spirit," Ewell said. "I'll miss his tenacity in working to get the best deal for the city."
  Ewell said some of the record-keeping problems spotlighted by the Union-Tribune can be attributed to the "handicaps and restrictions" placed on the city's real estate agency and other departments because of outmoded computer systems. He said much of the record-keeping in real estate is done by hand, causing some transactions to go unnoted.
  In a memo to the council criticizing the Sept. 18 story and justifying his department's work, Griffith said he needed new record-management tools and improved staffing.
 Four months ago, Young began asking questions about the city's land holdings as a possible source of revenue to help reduce a deficit in its pension system of at least $1.4 billion.
  On Sept. 12, the council adopted a report from Ewell that recommended investigating the possible sale of up to $100 million in property to apply to the pension system deficit.
 Ewell, who has announced his resignation and is leaving Dec. 31, said he will sit down with Griffith and devise a transition plan for how the agency will operate after Griffith departs.Councilman: Assets chief should be fired
By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The Daily Transcript, Sept. 23, 2005 San Diego City Councilman Brian Maienschein on Friday said Will Griffith, head of the city's Real Estate Assets Department, should be fired for failing to provide information requests and what the councilman claimed was substandard performance.
 Griffith has been accused by The San Diego Union-Tribune of having no idea of how much property the city owns.
  The Union-Tribune, following a two-month investigation, said in a survey of 4,430 properties worth billions of dollars, many could not be accounted for, others were added, some properties were never owned, more were reportedly on a wish list and some had allegedly been sold years before. "I was the editor on this story, and I think our investigation did show a  department that was in disarray," said Lorie Hearn, Union-Tribune Metro editor.
  Hearn said during the investigation, the Union-Tribune requested electronic
and paper databases as well as information on leased assets.
  "These were represented as being the complete list," Hearn said.
  Hearn said her newspaper then checked the city's records against those from
the County Assessors' office, conducted title searches and sought other
sources. What the reporters found were substantial discrepancies between the city-provided data and the other information they had collected.
  Hearn said multiple attempts to meet with Griffith were unsuccessful. "We made repeated attempts to meet with Mr. Griffith to talk with him about records management," said Hearn. "In the end, he only agreed to correspond by e-mail." Hearn said even corresponding via e-mail was frustrating.
  "We asked how many parcels does the city own, and each time we got a different answer," Hearn said. 
  This latest controversy questioning the city's ability to keep track of its
real estate comes at a time when it is wrestling with how to handle a $1.37 billion pension deficit.
  Griffith, in a lengthy Sept. 22 letter to Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins and the
City Council, refuted the allegations point by point. For one thing, Griffith said, the Union-Tribune failed to realize that the city had
multiple databases.
  "The electronic databases are all on the city's mainframe. I admit we have an antiquated system, but that isn't to say the data isn't complete," he said.
  Griffith concedes that part of the problem may be the downsizing that has hit his, as well as other departments.
  "Only one person is currently devoted to records management with assistance
from two clerical staff that have many other duties. These same employees are tasked with responding to all inquiries from the public as well," Griffith wrote.
  But a lack of staff and multiple databases aren't the only issue. Griffith
also concedes that the communication is so poor between the County
Assessor/Recorder's office and the city that the city doesn't necessarily
know when changes are made to county records.
  Griffith, in his letter, alleged the Union-Tribune made numerous errors
because it didn't assess each of the electronic databases and/or didn't
look through the city's paper files.
  For example, the Union-Tribune said 74 acres of property that was part of a multiple habitat conservation plan near Santee wasn't listed as being owned. Griffith said while this property has not been entered into an electronic database, it is included in a paper record. 
  "Adding parcels to databases requires mapping, data checking and setting up corresponding files," Griffith wrote.

Watchdog Bruce Henderson Chargers’ Facts and Rebutt
Set forth below is November 21, 2005 article appearing today in the Voice of San Diego regarding the Chargers’ proposal for a new stadium.
 In many important respects, even this late in the game, the article reflects material misunderstandings of the issues. In short, the educational process never ends.
 Before discussing the misconceptions, let me quickly address the argument of the Chargers that City Attorney Mike Aguirre is acting as a “roadblock at every step of the way.”
 That argument is quite obviously belied by the facts, namely, that it was Mike Aguirre just two weeks ago that initiated the actions required to jump start negotiations between the City and the Chargers. The fact that Mike Aguirre is not going to be a cheerleader for the Chargers’ project doesn't equate to Mike Aguirre being a roadblock.
 Let me now turn to what I believe are misconceptions reflected in the article in the Voice of San Diego.
 First, the article makes no mention of the status of Qualcomm Stadium. However, as made clear during the Monday Night Football game held there just weeks ago, Qualcomm Stadium is today one of the finest venues for NFL football in existence. That fact is critical to the public debate.
 Second, the article sidesteps the fact that the NFL still hasn't announced the name of a team to fill the slot in Los Angeles. That is critical because until the NFL rules out the Chargers as the team to move to Los Angeles, San Diegans must assume in evaluating the Chargers’ actions that moving to Los Angeles constitutes the true goal of the team's proposal.
 Third, the article asserts that the Chargers seek only 60 acres from the City for the project. That assertion ignores two obvious facts. The Chargers’ proposal provides that the City, not the Chargers, will provide 30 acres of land to be developed into park space. That 30 acres would normally be acquired by a developer and deeded to the City. So, that 30 acres should in all fairness be added to the acreage sought by the Chargers.
 But, we don't stop there. The article leads the casual reader to believe that the remaining portion of the 166 acres would be “city-owned” with a stadium paid for by the Chargers. What is ignored is that that remaining acreage would be leased, rent-free, to the Chargers for at least 40 years exclusively for the use of the Chargers along with rights to renew that lease.
 So, the Chargers aren't seeking an interest in just 60 acres for the team's benefit. The Chargers in fact seek 166 acres to directly and to indirectly be used to the financial benefit of the Chargers.
 Fourth, the article could easily lead one to believe that the Chargers will pony up $450 million for a new stadium. That isn't the reality of the deal. Instead, the money to pay for the stadium is to come from sale by the Chargers of 60-acres of development.
 In short, it is the public, not the Chargers, who will actually fund a new stadium. Not one dime of the money will end up coming from the Chargers.
 That point leads to the fifth misconception, namely, that “a price tag on the public land that would be ceded to the team is tricky.” True, a precise price is difficult to set; however, an estimate is easy. Given the prime location of the site for condo development, a price, representing the value of the City's land, of $150,000 per unit for the condos being proposed is quite reasonable, particularly when that price per unit includes the public infrastructure.
 Given that the Chargers are asking for development rights for at least 6,000 condos, the math is obvious: 6,000 x $150,000 equals $900,000,000 – and that $900 million doesn't even include the value to the Chargers of the commercial and retail development; the hotels; and the value to the Chargers of a new stadium.
 Subtract from $900 million the cost of stadium construction; the public infrastructure contribution; the park development; and the payoff of the City bond debt, and what you will discover is that there remains a hundred million or more in pure profit from the deal for the Chargers.
 In other words, every expense is paid from the value of the land and development rights given to the Chargers by the City. At the end of the day, the Chargers get a free stadium plus a huge profit.
 The sixth misconception is that the Qualcomm Stadium site is currently underutilized. The point begs the question. After all the reason the site is covered “under the glacier of concrete surrounding the stadium” (including the tarmac parking areas) is because the Chargers have insisted in their lease with the City that the entire site be used in just that manner. Right now the site functions as a 166-acre regional sports park. If 60 acres of parking can be eliminated, why shouldn't that land be turned into playing fields for our children rather than condos? That question needs to be publicly addressed and debated.
 The final misconception I have time to address is the assertion in the article that “Gone is the ghastly ticket guarantee.” Not so. The ticket guarantee provided a 10-year rent credit for unsold tickets. All that happened in 2004 was that the City agreed to a permanent rent credit that applied regardless of ticket sales. That change diverted press attention from sales figures for individual games, but the cost to the City was almost $100,000,000 in the form of a reduction in rent the Chargers had agreed to pay through 2020. So, while the public relations problems caused by the ticket guarantee were resolved, in truth the cost of the ticket guarantee continues, on and on.
 Due in part to the 2004-rent reduction, whereas the Chargers used to tout the lease with the City as the best financial deal for a city in the NFL, the Chargers now claim that Qualcomm Stadium operates at a $19 million annual loss for taxpayers. The ticket guarantee morphed all right, and it's now a permanent fiscal nightmare.
 In closing I do have some good news which is that, while the media may still have a long way to go to understand the Chargers’ proposal, it is obvious that Mike Aguirre understands all the details and all the financial implications – and that's the real reason the Chargers dislike him so much.

Playing Field Altered This Time in Chargers Push for Stadium
By ANDREW DONOHUE Voice Staff Writer, Nov. 21, 2005
 The last the San Diego Chargers saw of Mike Aguirre he was a pesky citizen. He arrived at the evening meetings of the mayor's task force on stadium issues armed with blown-up newspaper articles and accompanied by the likes of a college professor who regularly referred to the National Football League as a "cartel."
  The private attorney used his companions and the public comment portion of the 2002 and 2003 meetings to combat the football team's public statements about their need for a new home and their past promises.
  The Chargers may still consider Aguirre pesky. But add a new title before his name and City Attorney Mike Aguirre turns from private pest to powerful public official.
 From that title comes a new venue from which to address the team's desires the same way he has dealt with the city's other high-profile issues: with his usual confrontational style. To be sure, the Chargers have adapted quickly. Instead of simply brushing off the concerns of citizen Aguirre, the team now frequently releases documents to the media and the public contesting what team officials say are inaccuracies in the city attorney's public statements regarding their contract and new stadium proposal.
 "The sad fact is that you have become the Terrell Owens of San Diego by making name-calling and erroneous statements regular weapons in your perpetual grabs for television cameras," the team's special counsel, Mark Fabiani, wrote last week in a letter addressed to Aguirre.
 It was a reference to the temperamental Philadelphia Eagles star football player who was recently suspended from the team indefinitely for making disparaging public remarks about his teammates and coach.
 "And I've called them corporate welfare queens," Aguirre said. "They're talking smack. They're just not used to anybody talking smack back to them. I think they'll get past that and we'll move forward."
 The battle just began simmering but is likely to rage as the Chargers progress towards a stadium proposal that could be before voters a year from now. It could be ramping up quickly, too. Just as he's done with the pension system, the city's consultants and its wastewater system, Aguirre plans to complete a background report into the Chargers past dealings with the city within a month.
 "We anticipate that Aguirre will be a roadblock at every step of the way. And if, in the end, the Chargers are unable to work out a deal in San Diego, Aguirre will be the one responsible for that outcome," said Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' special counsel.
 Indeed, the back-and-forth between the city attorney and the team isn't merely a personality issue. It's one of many significant dynamics that have changed since the Chargers' business representatives were last selling the idea of a new football stadium to San Diegans in 2002 and 2003.
 For one, the American public in general doesn't support publicly subsidized ballparks and football stadiums with the same fervor it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. In that era, a construction boom of new, publicly financed stadiums left cities and team owners constantly trying to keep up with the Jones'. Significant changes between the Chargers' original stadium proposal and the one on the table now reflect that change.
 And while the team's on-the-field performance has improved greatly in recent years, the city's financial picture has gone from above-average to desperately poor since the Chargers first presented a stadium plan in January 2003. The city's shaky finances and political uncertainty, team officials say, have driven away prospective developers needed to complete the housing and retail buildings that would stand alongside a new football stadium in Mission Valley.
 The political whirlwind has even changed the basic equation. Talk no longer simply focuses around if the voters will approve the package. The debate now shifts to whether the team can even get a proposal on the ballot in 2006 because of the city's meltdown, and what potential roadblocks await a development plan if it is approved by voters.
 Fabiani said any voter-approved development of the scale proposed by the team will require the close cooperation of a number of government entities, including the city.
 "If key city officials are fighting you every step of the way, the project will never succeed and the capital invested will be lost," he said.
 Then there's always lustful Los Angeles. The nation's second largest city has been without a team for a decade and the NFL reached a preliminary deal with the Los Angeles Coliseum last week to remodel the stadium to pro football standards. Anaheim is also said to desire a team.
 The Chargers, too, have recognized some of their shortcomings. Understanding that they had a community relations issue spawning largely from unpopular contracts in the past, team officials now concentrate as much on community relations as they do political maneuvering.
 A different game than 2003 Voters and politicians appear changed from the boom epoch that saw cities, counties and states passing hundreds of millions of tax dollars to multi-millionaire team owners.
 "I think there is certainly more resistance to heavily subsidized facilities and an interest in development strategies that guarantee investments," Mark Rosentraub, a stadium expert and professor of urban affairs at Cleveland State University, said in an e-mail.
 Indeed, that creed is evidenced in the changes seen to the Chargers' proposal in recent years.
 Nowhere does the backlash against public subsidies seem more noticeable than in San Diego. Padres team owner John Moores is so highly regarded outside of San Diego that he was handpicked by President Jimmy Carter as chairman of the Carter Center. The former president's foundation is dedicated to "advancing human rights and alleviating unnecessary human suffering." He also sits on the board of regents of the nation's most prestigious state university system, the University of California.
 Here, in his adopted hometown, Moores' name is often scorned. It is synonymous with corporate welfare because of the 1998 deal approved by voters that gave Moores a new ballpark and priceless patches of downtown land with the help of more than $200 million in taxpayer funds.
 It is a fact that doesn't appear lost upon Chargers officials. The stadium proposal they originally floated in January 2003 asked for more than $200 million of public money and included the sale of public land.
 The proposal today looks quite different from that the Chargers shop around town now to community, business and labor groups.
 The plan today is fairly simple. The team wants the city to give it 60 acres of the 166-acred Mission Valley site. In exchange, the team offers to build a new stadium that it expects will attract a number of Super Bowls in the future. The team, along with development partners, also proposes to construct a mixed-used development that would include housing, retail and office space.
 On the 60 acres, the Chargers would build condos, the sale of which would help offset developers' costs in other aspects of the project.
 A 30-acre public park, to be paid for and built by the team, is included. And the team says it will also pay off the remainder of the bond payments left over from the 1997 remodeling of Qualcomm Stadium, as well as the infrastructure improvements that will be necessary to accommodate new growth and traffic. Those improvements include such things as roads, sewer lines and adequate police and fire protection.
 The bond and infrastructure costs are likely to total more than $200 million, according to team estimates.
 The stadium itself is estimated to cost $450 million, will be city-owned and paid for by the team.
 Putting a price tag on the public land that would be ceded to the team is tricky. Some speculators say it is invaluable because of its location. Team officials point out that it's worth nothing so long as it remains trapped under the glacier of concrete ringing the stadium.
 Aguirre said the proposal is simple. Do San Diegans want to give up 60 acres of public land in exchange for keeping the team in town for the foreseeable future?
 "There's no economic benefit to the city," he said.
 Not so fast, say others. Many, including many city officials, see a sizable benefit in the elimination of the city's $6 million annual bond payment, which remains from the 1997 Qualcomm renovation that was supposed to keep the team in town for decades. Fabiani also points out that the deal will eliminate for the city $19 million in annual maintenance and operating costs at Qualcomm Stadium.
 "This is a trade," Fabiani said. "This is not a giveaway."
 Another issue that will likely be debated will be whether or not congested Mission Valley can handle the strains of more development.
 And as the Chargers have regained creditability on the football field, they continue to try and improve their creditability as corporate citizens.
 Gone is the ghastly ticket guarantee, a clause that forced the city to buy the unsold tickets of every Charger game. The team no longer holds training camp near Los Angeles in Carson, something it did briefly to the protest of many fans weary of losing the team to its northern neighbors.
 That appeared to become a more real possibility this month, when the NFL signed a preliminary deal to revamp the Los Angeles Coliseum into a pro football-worthy venue. When the Chargers first sought a stadium in 2002 and 2003, stadium proposals abounded in Los Angeles, but no deal was anything more than an idea.
 But Chargers officials say they have been put on the defensive by the city attorney's public statements.
 With or without the title of city attorney, Mike Aguirre would be one of the most frequent critics of the Chargers stadium dealing. But with the title, he'll be smack dab in the middle of the closed-door negotiations. And next to him on the negotiating team will be political ally and fellow Chargers skeptic City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
 Before pensions, before investigations, before his election, Aguirre spent plenty of time hounding the team. Now he appears to be genuinely excited about the upcoming talks.
 Aguirre and his supporters promise he'll be there to make sure the city avoids the disastrous contracts of the past. The team's boosters think he'll play the role of saboteur rather than savior.
 "My role is not to be a rubber stamp, but to ask the question so that voters can be in the place to make a right decision and are not bamboozled," Aguirre said.
 For now, everyone has their own vision of how the negotiations will play out.
 "Your participation on the city's negotiating team dooms the process before it even begins," Fabiani wrote in his Nov. 10 letter to the city attorney.

Money is corrupting politics – once again
Lionel Van Deerlin, Union Tribune Opinion, June 9, 2005
 For one who has seen 90 years in this vale of tears, mine must seem a sheltered life. Until three San Diego City Council members came under scrutiny for their purported interest in laws regarding strip joints, I never knew what "lap dancing" is. Indeed, I would not have known much even yet, except for news accounts of the public corruption trial under way in our town.
 But without ascribing guilt or innocence, I've learned enough to know this case cries out for some really binding campaign finance reform. Public financing, maybe. The facts: An owner of girlie clubs both here and in Las Vegas hankered to be done with the "Do Not Touch" rules, which local ordinance requires him to enforce. The entrepreneur, who's in dutch along with our councilmen and lesser lights, feels that if patrons can be allowed to fondle the lightly clad merchandise, they will open their wallets more eagerly, significantly enriching both management and those dancing dollies. FBI intercepts leave little doubt that the two living councilmanic defendants, both 35, were promised generous campaign contributions. And that a number of discussions ensued dealing with stratagems that might help scuttle the no-touch law. It's left to jurors, of course, to determine what was in everyone's mind during these taped sessions, set against the backdrop of some favored San Diego dining spots. It will be argued that the monies thereafter tendered have been listed on campaign reports as the law requires.
  A jury verdict, therefore, could turn on how favorably eight men and four women, all drawn from the citizenry, view politicians. More specifically, whether any and all financial help directed to public officials might be thought tainted.
  Will jurors instead accept the notion that in an imperfect world, a donor's money buys "access" to an elected official – a chance to be heard, and nothing more? After roughly a billion dollars was blown on a presidential campaign, this trial shows how high the stakes can soar on state and local elections as well.
  A little more than 50 years ago, San Diego's Mayor Harley Knox uttered words that are preserved in John Gunther's "Inside USA." Knox, a dairyman able to underwrite a considerable portion of his re-election campaign, was informed that an opponent intended putting up $35,000 against him. His response: "Anyone spending that kind of money is not buying good government."
  No San Diegan today could hope to wage a winning campaign for school board with as little as $35,000. An incumbent City Council member won't feel safe with much less than a quarter-million under the mattress. What's to blame? Television, mainly. In peak time periods, a network station may charge up to $6,000 for a single 30-second TV spot.
  Broadcasters once regarded political advertising as a nuisance, a source of income so enmeshed in equal-time law and kindred regulation as to constitute more trouble than it's worth.
  Today, with the Federal Communications Commission far less interested, political advertising (during and between elections) has become a major dollar producer for many stations. Moreover, station owners, who pay nothing for their licensed access to the nation's airwaves, no longer feel a responsibility to present candidates in unpaid time as "public service" justifying the station's spectrum space. Congress, in happy obeisance to hometown broadcasters, looks the other way. An incidental result are tens of thousands of "political action committees," a legally authorized, though virtually unregulated, form of giving which enables a corporate entity or any special interest – even politicians themselves – to maintain permanent fundraising systems. (House leader Tom DeLay's troubles come to mind.) It happens that these PACs had the noblest of beginnings. Dan Kimball, who was President Truman's undersecretary of the Navy, later assumed management of Aerojet Engineering in Pasadena and Sacramento.  During election campaigns, Kimball invited major partisan candidates to address his work force on company time. Afterward, he invited workers to contribute a few dollars to campaigns of the candidates they liked best. No one was forced to take part, and the disbursement of campaign dollars, independent of management, depended on how well the individual candidates had connected.
  Alas, PACs have become something very different, their cash input a legalized form of laundered money. Voters in Maine and Arizona have decided public financed election campaigns are the answer – that taxpayers can save a bundle, overall, by bearing the brunt of necessary campaign costs, while limiting all others.
  If not something like this, do we wait another 2,000 years to drive money-changers from the temple?

On thin ice, city officials face a spring thaw
By Ron Carrico, San Diego Daily Transcript, March 17, 2005
It's that time of year -- spring is coming. Time for ice on northern and mountain lakes to begin melting.
When I was a kid in Illinois, this was the time of year to be careful walking on lake ice. It could break suddenly and put you in freezing water. It never happened to me, but I wonder if you would hear the ice start to crack. I imagine that first there would be few snaps and pops, cracks would appear and then suddenly the whole sheet would fracture. Terrible results -- and suddenly everyone is on their own to survive.
This vision makes me think of San Diego politics. We started hearing the snaps and pops months ago and can see the cracks developing as the whole fabric of City Hall fractures. We are just beginning to see the everyone-for-themselves phase.
As this dreadful state of the city plays out, it's clear that there's more to this fracturing than just a budget shortfall, pension deficits or weak management. What's becoming clear is that senior officials, unions, well-connected friends and employees have systematically run the city for their financial benefit.
Recent revelations about compensation paid to city officials is staggering. This includes the number of salaried employees making more than $100,000 per year, firefighters making more than $200,000 per year, outside experts being paid $400 to $800 per hour, and a DROP program entitling employees to collect full pay and full pension for their last five years of employment.
Every week there's another revelation of some outrageous sum of money the city is paying to some well-connected individual. But for the top officials, perhaps the payoff is more in the nature their power and the future benefit of political jobs -- full-pay retirement programs with free health benefits.
Consider the power Mayor Dick Murphy has and how he used it with his appointment of Karoush Hangafarin to the Port Commission. Hangafarin's only qualification seemed to be that he was a "great community leader." There was no reason that he should be appointed to take Peter Q. Davis' position. His political contributions took precedence over two other highly qualified individuals.
Now we know how well this appointment worked out.
But that mistake, when the mayor and council are under investigation anyway, just seems like -- how about stupidity? Another loud cracking noise. More evidence of how money buys results from politicians.
Consider the mayor's recent new appointments of pension trustees. Murphy pointedly did not ask Diann Shipione to serve again. Clearly the reason was that she is the whistle blower who pointed to cracks in the ice revealing the disaster of pension underfunding.
There is something else under the surface that may also be in question. I invite you to reread an article of mine published in The Daily Transcript on Feb. 5, 2002, called "Adjudication on the merits" (SourceCode: 20020205tzb).
This article told of the unbelievable rush to judgment in a case involving the issuance of the Ballpark Bonds. I was reminded of this a few days ago by a reader. Within a few days of the judgment in the case, the exorbitantly expensive ballpark bonds were issued. Two weeks later the Blue Ribbon Commission Report on City Finances was issued -- very slightly hinting of the city's pension problems.
Now, four years later, the rush by the court to adjudicate the challenge to the ballpark bonds indicates that maybe the court was not the impartial arbiter it seemed to be. Was it just coincidence that the court made three cases disappear in a matter of days?
As the spring thaw approaches, the evidence of cracks of political corruption are getting deeper and spreading wider. A total fragmentation of San Diego's political apparatus may be imminent.
A few months ago, The New York Times referred to San Diego as "Enron by the Sea." I am beginning to think that City Hall may soon be referred by a new title: Tammany Hall by the Sea

CONGRATULATIONS Mr. Mayor TIME magazine award
By Peter J. DiRenza, Antigovernment Corruption, PJD
 Quite frankly, sir, I believe that you should have been awarded FIRST PLACE.  
How did you ever manage to come in THIRD.
Now, Mr. Mayor, that the entire world is aware of your standing in relation to God knows how many other mayors in this country, don't you believe you should resign as suggested by Mr. Aguirre?
Sir, it's not your character, although some would disagree, because you appear to be a nice guy.
Frankly, Mr. Mayor, you are incompetent, easily manipulated, totally
inefficient, are not aware of the City Charter or the laws you work under, including not giving a darn about city employees or taxpayers.
 I would like to know just what good things your administration accomplished.  
The ballpark:  No way.  That was J. Moores
The Pension Fund:  Yes.  That was you.
The Health Fund:  Yes.  That was you
The Potholes:  Yes.  That was you.
The NTC give away:  Yes.  That was you.
Two City Councilmen under indictment:
 Yes.  They should have been suspended.
City investigations by FBI, SEC, Justice Department, City Attorney, DA:  Yes, that was you.
No cooperation with the City Attorney:  Yes, that is you.
No cooperation between Pension Commission and Law Enforcement:  Yes, again --You.
 Dumanis attempting to take over part of the City Attorney's office:  Yes, you had a hand in that.
 Hiring an auditor at $750. per hour:  Yes, you and the City Manager.
Inability to work with colleagues;  Yes, You.
Vindictive personality:  Yes, that is you.
 Now, what was it you said you did correctly? Come on Mr. Mayor, TIME magazine shows that your commissions/ommissions have caused a total embarrassment to this City.  Please resign before we have to recall you.

Murphy Bristles At Being Named Among Nation's Worst Mayors Murphy Listed Among 3 Worst Mayors In Time Magazine Report
Excerpt: am PDT April 18, 2005
San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy is in the national media spotlight, and he isn't pleased.Mayor Dick Murphy speaks after being named one of nation's 3 worst mayors by Time magazine.
  Time magazine names him one of America's three worst mayors. In its issue hitting newsstands Monday, the magazine cites Murphy's role in the city's underfunded pension plan -- specifically, a deal in 2002 that increased pension payouts and gave special benefits to union presidents. That deal is now under investigation by the FBI, the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
  The magazine also notes that Murphy almost lost his bid for a second term to write-in candidate Donna Frye. The city councilwoman collected about 5,500 more votes, but courts ruled those ballots invalid because voters failed to darken the oval next to her name.Hickenlooper.
By NBCSandiego.com. The Associated Press contributed

Mayor's chief of staff resigns, Kern to raise funds for election lawsuit fight
By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, January 12, 2005
Mayor Dick Murphy on Wednesday accepted the resignation of his longtime friend and political adviser John Kern.
Kern currently serves as Murphy's chief of staff. His resignation is effective April 1.
"John and I have been close friends and colleagues for years," said Murphy. "It is very difficult to let him go, but I appreciate that he will still be working for me outside this office."
"I have been proud to serve Mayor Murphy and his administration," Kern said in a prepared statement. "I believe his record of accomplishments in his first four years is unsurpassed by any mayor in the 33 years I have been an active participant and observer of San Diego government and politics."
"The past four years as chief of staff been the highlight of my career," said Kern. "We have had some outstanding successes. There have been good times and tough times and through it all I believe we have done our best to serve the people of San Diego."
Rather than completely disappear from San Diego politics, Kern plans to re-open his consulting business, The Kern Co.
The company will assume the responsibility of the fund-raising efforts to pay for the legal expenses that Mayor Murphy will accrue in defending the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.
Upon Kern's departure, Murphy has named Senior Policy Adviser Tom Story as the acting chief of staff. Story was hired by the mayor after the 2000 election and has advised Murphy on public works, transportation, land use and environmental issues.
Prior to joining the Murphy team, Story served as deputy director of the planning department for 11 years and was also the architect of the city's Multiple Species Conservation Plan.

Frye, Rider urge private-property protection, Steps proposed in wake of Supreme Court ruling
By Matthew T. Hall, UNION-TRIBUNE, July 1, 2005
  Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Donner Frye, is unveiling plans to protect land owners from public agency land seizures.
  Two San Diego mayoral candidates unveiled plans yesterday to protect property owners from public-agency land seizures in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded government powers of eminent domain.
  Separately, Councilwoman Donna Frye and taxpayer activist Richard Rider proposed limiting how public officials can acquire private property. Frye also outlined a plan to preserve industrial land she said is being lost to homes, offices and other uses. "The government is supposed to protect businesses," Frye said. "It's not supposed to make them fearful of whether or not they're ever going to be able to stay in the community in which they grew up." Less industrial land means fewer jobs for San Diego, which has lost 6,000 manufacturing jobs in five years by rezoning industrial property, she said.
  At a news conference, Frye proposed a new city policy to maintain industrial land the way wetlands and open space are preserved, by requiring developers to replace it elsewhere when they eliminate it for their projects.
  She also proposed that each plan to rezone an industrial site require an economic analysis to explore the effect on the city's tax base.
  After rezoning 1,000 acres of industrial land for residential use in the past 10 years, San Diego is left with 1,800 acres available for industrial use, only 500 of which is ready to be developed, Frye said.
  Joining Frye and endorsing her yesterday were Ahmad Mesdaq, a cigar-shop owner whose business was condemned by the city to make way for a downtown hotel, and Rene Coons, whose lithography shop in the Midway District is in a redevelopment zone and in jeopardy of being taken over by the city to make way for condominiums. Mesdaq fought the city's redevelopment plans but dropped his opposition about three weeks ago. Frye was the only member of the council to vote against condemning his property in spring 2004. She said the city should not declare the area blighted after Mesdaq spent $2.5 million buying and renovating his shop.  She again opposed the idea that the city take private property to sell to another developer when she cast the lone vote in May against declaring Grantville a blighted area for redevelopment and possible property seizures.
 The Supreme Court ruled last week in a 5-4 vote that public agencies could seize private property and give it to private developers for economic development.
  At issue was a case in New London, Conn., where city officials wanted land for a $300 million research facility for pharmaceutical leader Pfizer. Governments historically have used eminent domain to build schools, roads, sewer systems and other public projects.
  In 1954, the Supreme Court made it possible for governments to use eminent domain to redevelop blighted areas.
  If the city doesn't adopt new restrictions on its eminent-domain powers, businesses will be less inclined to improve their properties or even move to San Diego in the first place, Frye said. "The real intention of allowing government to take our property is for public use, and public use needs to be redefined," she said. "A public use does not mean one developer over another developer. That is not a public use. That is abuse."
 The court's decision reverberated in Congress, where the House yesterday approved a measure prohibiting federal financing for property seizures. In a news release, Rider condemned the court's decision on eminent domain. He said he supports a City Charter amendment to place "severe limitations on government's right to condemn private property for private use." He added that if the City Council wouldn't support him, he would push for public support to put a charter amendment on the ballot in the June 2006 election.
  In telephone interviews, two other mayoral candidates rejected the call for limitations on the city's eminent-domain powers, while a third supported it. Former Police Chief Jerry Sanders did not return a call for comment.
 Lawyer Pat Shea and business executive Steve Francis said property seizures should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
  Motorcycle dealership owner Myke Shelby said he supports passing a new law in San Diego "that would be counter to the Supreme Court" to protect property rights. He also accused his opponents of playing politics with the issue. "I guess some campaign manager somewhere said this would get someone a few more votes," Shelby said. "I'm going to do away with all the red-light cameras when I get to be mayor. Good for me."

Watchdog comment: Fry's record shows she, unlike other council members, has continually opposed eminent-domain of giving private property from one owner to another private party. She has supported home-grown small businesses and preservation of our light industrial businesses.

San Diego Reader Breaking Stories
Published on June 30, 2005
The Coalition to Keep San Diego Working, the shadowy political committee that sent out thousands of hit pieces against city councilwoman Donna Frye in the waning hours of last year's mayoral race without disclosing who paid for them, has taken a new tack. According to filings with the Federal Elections Commission, the group, which calls itself KEEP PAC, has morphed into a so-called 527 committee, which under federal law can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns as long as it doesn't directly coordinate with candidates. Before filing with the feds, the committee was registered with California's Secretary of State. The group's purpose, according to its federal filing, dated March 31, is "to contribute to candidates and measures that support employment opportunities."...Trustees at the San Diego Unified School district have tossed out yet another pet project of departed superintendent Alan Bersin. The "Public Education Leadership Project" involved junkets by members of Bersin's inner circle back to his alma mater Harvard, at an annual cost of $30,000. Bersin had promised to pay for the trips from his so-called superintendent's fund, a cash trove donated by unnamed backers, but never turned over the money.

Outsider moves in for a fight against City Hall
Mixed views greet Aguirre's ambitious moves on first week
By Matthew T. Hall, UNION-TRIBUNE, December 12, 2004
Mike Aguirre, San Diego's new city attorney, is fighting City Hall from within it.
During his first week in office, Aguirre criticized the city's leadership, revived a dormant public integrity unit with prosecution powers and began an investigation into allegations of accounting fraud by city officials.
"We will work to restore government integrity," Aguirre said at his swearing-in ceremony Monday. "The City Attorney's Office will not remain on the sidelines and watch San Diego slide deeper into the financial abyss."
His supporters say Aguirre is quickly living up to the promises he made in his campaign against the status quo, but others contend he has already overstepped in a way that could make it harder for him to accomplish his goals.
City attorney changes
Who's in:
Rupert Linley, a former deputy district attorney and former special assistant U.S. attorney, will head the criminal division.
Les Girard, assistant city attorney in charge of special projects, has withdrawn his resignation.
Who's out:
Leslie Devaney, the No. 2 lawyer under former City Attorney Casey Gwinn, will stay through January after losing to Mike Aguirre in the Nov. 2 election.
Frank Devaney, head of the civil division's trial unit and Leslie Devaney's husband, will leave in March.
Rick Duvernay, head of the public policy unit and an acting assistant city attorney during Devaney's campaign leave, has left to become city attorney in Redding, Calif.
Gail Strack, an assistant city attorney for domestic violence, is now acting director of the newly created Family Justice Center department under the City Manager's Office.
Susan Heath, who headed the criminal division, has retired.
Aguirre said his top priority is erasing the stain of a city fiscal crisis marked by a billion-dollar pension deficit, two overdue annual audits and a borrowing ability so crippled that new water and wastewater projects are on hold.
The city's finances are being investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Aguirre said solving the crisis will require disclosing its extent, depths and breaking a chain of closed-door City Council meetings about it.
"It just invites disrespect and concern when we're meeting in closed session talking about criminal investigations of city officials," he said. "This is not a private corporation. We're not organized lawbreakers. We're an open public agency that needs to hold its meetings open to the public."
Aguirre campaigned as "a city attorney for us," while his opponent, Leslie Devaney, former City Attorney Casey Gwinn's chief assistant, said she would first carry out the charter-defined duties of representing the mayor, City Council and its management team and prosecuting misdemeanors.
Their opposing philosophies quickly became the central issue in the campaign, which Aguirre won by eight-tenths of a percentage point after ballot counting extended weeks beyond the Nov. 2 Election Day.
He will earn $173,705 a year overseeing an office of about 320 staff members, including 130 attorneys, and a budget of more than $32 million.
Aguirre's most explosive action last week was his beginning an independent investigation into allegations that city employees lied and withheld information in disclosures related to its pension deficit.
Attorney Patrick Shea, a friend of Aguirre's and one of four unpaid advisers assessing staff changes in the City Attorney's Office, called the step essential.
"There is going to be an unavoidable irritation" between Aguirre and city officials "who don't want that kind of disclosure," Shea said.
"Mike has no choice but to do what he's doing," he said. "Mike didn't create this situation. The reality is that the financial markets do not believe the materials . . . published by the city of San Diego."
But John Kaheny, a former 22-year employee of the City Attorney's Office who worked on and contributed to Devaney's campaign, sees Aguirre's investigation differently.
"He's basically waging war against his clients," Kaheny said. "That could lead to difficulties down the road that I don't think he's foreseen.
"An adversarial relationship" could cause city officials to communicate less openly with Aguirre and could complicate the budget process for the office, which requires council approval, Kaheny said.
"You want your clients to come to you before they get in trouble," he said. "And if you break down those lines of communication, the attorney only gets a call after the eggs have broken." Councilman's view
Councilman Michael Zucchet said Aguirre's investigation is unwise if it doesn't help the city speed up the release of an annual audit of its 2003 books, which has been delayed for more than a year.
The law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP, which represents San Diego in the SEC investigation, began investigating allegations of accounting fraud and illegal conduct last month, after the city's independent auditor said a 2003 audit wouldn't be released without it.
Zucchet said Aguirre's investigation "seems duplicative, but I guess I would have to hear more about his reasons before I would call it anything harsher than that."
"If he's just doing it because it sounds good to him, it seems like there are other priorities right now," Zucchet said. "If it doesn't help expedite the audit, I don't think it's the right priority."
It's a city attorney's job to represent elected officials, city management and the public, and that can create conflicts, said Michael Roush, president of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities.
Establishing a good relationship with the city council is "critical for any city attorney to be able to do his or her job well," Roush said.
Yet, he added, "The public really does look to you to make sure that government runs in a legal and ethical kind of way." Bumpier start
Aguirre faces a bumpier start than Gwinn did eight years ago and not just because of the city's financial crisis.
Gwinn spent 10 years in the office before being elected as the city's top lawyer. He also won in a primary election, then had eight months of preparation before City Attorney John Witt's departure.
Witt was city attorney from 1969 to 1996, before term limits restricted elected officials in the city to two four-year terms.
"I was pretty much able to pack up all my things and take them home – much to my wife's regret – and not have to worry too much about a transition," Witt said.
Witt, who has advised Aguirre on the transition, said it was inevitable for the staff to feel some anxiety after a senior member lost the election.
But Witt said Aguirre's done a good job of "calming those fears."
Still, Witt called Aguirre "something of a loose cannon," then added, "He's smart enough to figure out that he has to cooperate with all the others."
The changes in style are echoed by more obvious changes at the Civic Center Plaza downtown. Paper signs above the locks on the doors say the "combination has been changed." Tuesday night, Aguirre's furniture from the office he had in private practice arrived. Thursday, his bookcases still lacked shelves.
Anxiety levels are high among attorneys unsure whether they'll be retained, but a shake-up among the top attorneys won't be as extensive as anticipated.
Assistant City Attorney Les Girard, who has worked in the office since 1981, announced his resignation effective Dec. 6, then withdrew it Tuesday.
Girard has handled many of the city's major legal issues, including the pension-deficit investigations and negotiations with the Chargers and Padres sports teams.
Girard said Aguirre has held meetings with many groups in the office, which has made the transition as smooth as possible, considering Aguirre only had two weeks to accomplish it.
"I think the atmosphere today is one of relief," Girard continued. "Going into a transition like we've had is a very unsettling experience." Outsiders rare
Aguirre became the first outsider to take over the City Attorney's Office since 1964, when lawyer Edward Butler left a small electronics firm to head the office.
So far, Aguirre has announced only one member of his management team. Rupert Linley, a former deputy district attorney and former special assistant U.S. attorney, will head the criminal division.
Devaney, Aguirre's campaign opponent, will remain through January to ease the transition. Her husband, Frank Devaney, who assigns cases to the city's attorneys, plans to leave in March.
The office's uncertainty won't end with the staff changes. The city faces several significant legal issues in addition to its pension deficit problems.
The fate of the much-litigated Mount Soledad Cross, which unconstitutionally sits on city property, is undecided.
A tentative $1.2 billion settlement with government agencies and environmental groups that would force the city to upgrade its aging sewer system has been shelved because of the city's limited borrowing ability.
And the city is appealing a $94.5 million jury verdict in favor of a developer who accuses the city of ruining his business park.
Aguirre has said he wants to rein in the city's spending on hiring private attorneys.
He also wants to ensure the city charter and the municipal code comply with each other. That's important because of their well-publicized discrepancy over write-in candidates and because the city manager's budgeting and personnel powers will shift to the mayor in January 2006, with the passage of Proposition F last month.
Businessman Ted Roth, who contributed heavily to the strong-mayor campaign, is confident Aguirre will respect the voters who passed the measure over Aguirre's opposition.
"I'm certainly going to be watching closely," he said. "And I think that all the supporters of the strong-mayor proposal will be watching with anticipation."
Consultant Adrian Kwiatkowski, one of the architects of that measure, said Aguirre also may be able to improve the system.
"There is definitely a time to do what he is doing," Kwiatkowski said.
Given the results of this election, Kwiatkowski added, "Business as usual is unacceptable."
"There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that voters are unhappy," he said. "That's what leadership is."
Ed Miller, who worked for the City Attorney's Office in the 1950s and 1960s, then served as U.S. attorney and district attorney in San Diego County, is one of many lawyers who has advised Aguirre on his takeover and the job ahead.
"I'm sure he's determined to clean up the situation," Miller said. "We all hope that he can."

Both candidates claim to be the face of a 'new San Diego' ELIZABETH MALLOY, The Daily Transcript, November 4, 2005
Excerpt:
 Sanders called Frye's claims that he represents the same people who supported former mayor Dick Murphy, "ridiculous," and said he would not represent business as usual, pointing to his track record of turning around organization such as the Red Cross and United Way.
 "I've received donations from people who have never given to political campaigns before," Sanders said. "We were looking at our finance committee the other day, the two people chairing it, Tom Carter and Dean Oliver, neither one of them supported Dick Murphy, they supported somebody else. We went around the table many of those people didn't support Dick Murphy, they supported somebody else."
 According to an analysis of campaign finance records by the Center for Policy Initiatives, the largest percentage - about 30 percent - of Sanders' funding has come from donors in the real estate and development industries. ...
 Sanders said his fiscal recovery plan would take 5 years.
 "I want to completely restructure city government, want to streamline the beaurcracy, make decisions in public, hold people accountable for their performance and bring in a whole new generation of leaders," Sanders said. "That's the new San Diego."

Friends,
 The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 - 38. Below is the text of the bill as passed by the House. The amendments that would have substantially weakened the protections it affords were rejected. This tremendous outcome was a direct result of your calls and letters to Congress. But the battle is just beginning; the bill now heads to the Senate. We will need your support again to make sure that the Senate follows the House's lead in refusing to fund eminent domain abuse.
 YOU made the difference yesterday, and we appreciate your efforts and dedication to protecting private property rights.
  So from all of us here at the Castle Coalition - thank you!
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005
(Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 4128 AN ACT
To protect private property rights.
HR 4128 EH109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 4128 AN ACT
To protect private property rights. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.
(a) In General- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

Corporate Welfare And Ethical Meltdown
By Don Bauder, Reader, October 27, 2005
  Underfunded pensions. Deceitful disclosure. False accounting. Inadequate capital spending. Rotting infrastructure. Dwindling services. San Diegans are dizzy with the terms thrown at them. Can't somebody connect the dots? Strip away the verbiage? Say in simple terms what the problem boils down to?
  Yes. San Diego's financial, legal, and ethical meltdown can be reduced to basic cause and effect. City attorney Mike Aguirre states it pithily: "The government has been organized to facilitate the passing out of corporate welfare and benefits to the powerful players that have run the city for many years. It is not set up to support or consider broad policy questions that would advance the community as a whole."
  Well said. The city raided the pension fund to support corporate welfare -- for the Padres, the Chargers, real estate developers, hotel owners, tech and biotech industries, ad nauseam -- and finance events that would massage downtown egos, such as the 1996 Republican convention.
 To get the labor unions and pension board to agree to the underfunding, the city baited the hook by raising benefits. Deficits ballooned. City services had to be slashed. Infrastructure and equipment maintenance were neglected. In short, the money that should have been going to essential services was diverted to the fat cats who lined the pockets of politicians. 
  If the pols and bureaucrats hadn't plucked the money from the pension fund, they would have snatched it from some other source. A city that claims it is economically conservative is the reverse: it practices socialism for the rich.
  "The mayor and the council in the past decade have decided to support the dessert menu: pay for ballparks, the Republican convention, anything that supports the chamber of commerce and the big downtown corporate leaders," says former mayor Maureen O'Connor. "They have neglected the basics: potholes in the streets, clean bay, clean ocean, affordable housing. When I left office there was an AAA bond rating, money in the bank. [Former city manager] John Lockwood's managerial philosophy was if there wasn't money there, he wouldn't spend it." Beginning with the incumbency of former mayor Susan Golding, "city government underfunded the pension fund to pay for this dessert menu."
  During the heat of the ballpark debate, O'Connor predicted that if the city continued spending promiscuously, it would be bankrupt in five years. She was laughed at then -- but now she appears to have been right on target. 
  Mayoral candidate Donna Frye agrees: "The city's priorities have been out of whack with the public's best interest for a long, long time," she says. "The city has spent hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing corporate sports, land giveaways, sweetheart leases. It is a large part of the city's financial problems."
  A perfect example is the ballpark district, says Jim Mills, former president pro tem of the California senate. In addition to getting a ballpark, Padres majority owner John Moores got 26 downtown blocks surrounding the park. Then the city decided to put a new library there "to add value to the site. Now they are proposing that Centre City Development Corporation funds be used to build the library. But those funds are desperately needed for infrastructure downtown -- water pipes and sewers that are 130 years old. John Moores has never asked for something from the city council that he didn't get."
  Continues Mills, "The biggest problem in San Diego County today in the minds of most residents is traffic congestion. It is the direct result of city councils of various cities going along with whatever developers ask for. The problems along I-5 and I-15 are perfect examples; the developers make political contributions and get whatever they want."
  "The biggest example of corporate welfare is downtown redevelopment," says activist Mel Shapiro. "Here is the city cutting budgets of libraries, parks and recreation, but one thing they never touch or mention is downtown redevelopment. The CCDC [Centre City Development Corporation] owes the city $100 million, but Donna Frye is the only councilmember who says, 'Let's get some of that back' " so it can be spent on more pressing needs.
  Activist Norma Damashek cites the 1980s "deals with developers to develop the whole North City without providing any transportation plans. Now we don't know how to deal with Carmel Valley, Sorrento Hills. We took care of the needs of the developers on the backs of the public."
  The city had deals with San Diego Gas and Electric to underground power lines. In the 1995-2000 period, "we let them off the hook in return for a quick infusion of funds," she says. "The city attorney's office over many years just acted like a private club to take care of the needs of businesses and developers."
  As soon as Golding came in, city departments were told to serve developers and not the public. Environmentalists, historic preservationists, and others stressing the quality of life were scorned at city hall. Activist John McNab has long battled the giveaway of the former Naval Training Center to developer McMillin Companies. With the cooperation of various city departments, McMillin built homes but did not provide the community resources he promised.
  "McMillin promised three H-shaped buildings would be saved and fixed up for civic arts and culture. Now they will be buildings for retailers. It was stacked from the get-go," says McNab.
  "I have arts organizations asking me for contributions, saying they will have wonderful space at the McMillin project," says former city councilmember Abbe Wolfsheimer Stutz. "I tell them I am happy to give money, but I'm not willing to fund something McMillin should have been paying for."
  Environmentalists have been trampled. Before the election of 2000, former mayor Dick Murphy and councilmember Scott Peters promised that a portion of Sorrento Valley Road would be closed and used for biking, hiking, and habitat preservation. "It never happened," says Joanne Pearson, chair of the Sierra Club Coastal Committee. Biotechs "gave Peters a large fund-raiser" and flexed muscles to oppose the plan. The money that had been set aside for the project was grabbed and used to prettify La Jolla Parkway.
  As part of a lawsuit settlement with San Diego Baykeeper, the city agreed to upgrade 450 miles of sewer pipe over ten years. But because of the city's financial woes, "it will only do 30 miles next year," says Pearson, and will pay less than one-fourth of the legal fees it owes Baykeeper.
  On May 18, a civil grand jury concluded that city council frequently disregards community general plans, often because it is fearful of developer lawsuits. Planning groups have expressed distrust of the development services department staff, said the report. Council must listen to what kind of community the residents want. The city should adopt an ordinance to require that zoning be consistent with the general plan, including community plans, said the grand jury.
 Lease rates are infamous. Hotels on city land such as the Hyatt Regency Islandia "got lease rates that in no way reflect the value of the underlying land," says Richard Rider, recent mayoral candidate and a Libertarian voice. Political contributions are generally behind such handouts, he says, adding that the Centre City Development Corporation "has become a lackey for major corporations."
  Former councilmember Fred Schnaubelt says that the lease for Mission Bay Yacht Club is based on an appraisal that is less than half the realistic value.
 Under the so-called strong mayor system, this corruption is likely to get worse, says former councilmember Bruce Henderson. "As a practical matter, the mayor becomes the city manager. The mayor can direct who gets what city services when," he says. A company that slips the mayor some bucks can make sure its competitor doesn't get city services. "It encourages corruption. At the building department, there will be two lines: one line for people who have made contributions to the mayor and a line for people who haven't made contribution

Shake-up at city hall
By John Patrick Ford, San Diego Daily Transcript, March 25, 2004
A small rebellion was brewing at the San Diego City Council early this month. Two councilwomen, Toni Atkins and Donna Frye, boycotted a closed-session council meeting in protest over too much secrecy in city business.
The two protagonists, later joined by Jim Madaffer, submitted their proposals one week later for reform in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Their agenda is to assure San Diego citizens that elected representatives at City Hall are not making deals behind closed doors without public comment. It is a classic case of giving transparency to city government.
Among those testifying at the open council meeting on March 15 were volunteer citizens serving on community planning boards and both candidates for city attorney in the November election.
The general complaint about the current system was about shutting out public comment and disenfranchising community-planning groups in the process of approving new development. Other complaints referred to bad deals cut with sports teams, reuse of public lands and the pension fund deficit cover up.
Either by intent or coincidence, City Manager Michael Uberuaga tendered his resignation a few days later. Mayor Dick Murphy promptly called for reform of the city charter to change from a strong city manager form of government. He is backed up by an ad hoc group of community leaders and two former city managers.
Something must be going on in the back rooms of City Hall.
At issue is the proper implementation of the Brown Act, a state law that requires public business to be conducted in open forums, not behind closed doors. The recalcitrant council members object to frequent and regular City Council closed sessions. One of their proposed resolutions calls for the council to discuss and vote on the closed-session agenda during an open meeting. Otherwise, council convenes under a gag rule without members knowing what they are going to vote on.
Currently, control of closed-session agendas is vested in the city attorney and the mayor. The Brown Act permits closed sessions for real property negotiation, review of employee benefits and pending litigation. After council debate and action, there can be no discussion outside the closed session.
Councilwoman Atkins complained that many of the "secret-session" issues were already well publicized in the press and TV media as a result of aggressive investigative reporting, but the council cannot answer any constituent questions about the issue. If debate and public input occurred in open forum, council members could freely respond to advocates and adversaries and not be viewed as evasive public servants. That seems to be better city government.
One critic in the public comment session called for a grand jury investigation into secret dealings for use of public lands without community input. Another complaint referred to the dismissal of the city clerk from closed session council meetings, where he previously kept minutes of the proceedings.
When I came to San Diego four decades ago, the city manager, George Bean, was a seasoned and somewhat dictatorial administrator, succeeded by Tom Fletcher, a firm but more conciliatory leader. Council members then were part-time citizen-officials who gathered once a week to approve the city manager's agenda and returned to their private businesses for the rest of the week. They weren't paid much for their ceremonial job.
Then Pete Wilson changed the image of mayor, even though the city manager still technically ran the city. The critical change in civic governance, often blamed for today's fragmented city council, was the change in district elections for council members.
As of press time, the closed-session resolution was left in limbo because of a council deadlock. One of the supporters was absent at this week's meeting, resulting in a tie vote to be reconsidered Monday.
In the meantime, City Attorney Casey Quinn, a skeptic when the Frye-Atkins motion was put before council, has issued his official opinion. His report referred to the resolution as too ambiguous and subject to varied interpretations. The city attorney also revealed that the city clerk does not have staff qualified to record the business before the council in closed session. It seems that legal rhetoric might overcome the intended spirit of reform.
No doubt, compromises and concessions are in order before this City Council will seriously undertake reform of its meeting agenda. Watch for the outcome on Monday if the full council convenes for a showdown.
If the closed-session reform fails, it will be a campaign issue for the city attorney runoff in November. The leading candidate, Michael Aguirre, has been an avid critic of council procedure for years. Although not up for re-election, both Frye and Atkins are sure to make this a political hot potato for the mayor's race.
Why is the issue so important? The Brown Act declared that the citizens of California, "in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know."
In a nutshell, that says it all about closed-session council meetings.

San Diego's city manager resigns as feds probe bond sales, pension fund
San Diego-AP -- San Diego's city manager has resigned as a federal investigation looks into the city's financial practices.
Michael Uberuaga (oo-buh-RAH'-guh) has held the job in California's second-biggest city for more than six years, overseeing ten-thousand city workers and a two-point-three (b) billion-dollar budget.
Uberuaga said in a letter he's retiring April ninth, but didn't say why.
The Securities Exchange Commission and the U-S Attorney's Office have opened preliminary investigations into whether city officials gave fraudulent information to investors to sell more than two-point-three (b) billion dollars in bonds. They're also looking into the city's one (b) billion-dollar pension fund deficit.
San Diego officials have acknowledged the city has intentionally underfunded its pension system since 1996 in an effort to bridge budget shortfalls. That prompted Wall Street to downgrade the city's credit rating.

San Diego readies incomplete bond disclosures, could lead to higher rates
By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, March 23, 2005
The city is set to release another set of incomplete financial disclosures for bonds, which could have a negative impact on future bond ratings.
Some information will not be available for inclusion in the disclosures because the city has not yet completed its long-overdue 2003 financial audit, currently being worked on by auditing firm KPMG, said Lakshmi Kommi, deputy director of the city's financial services department.
"We expect all of this to go out on time," Kommi said. "But, I do not know how much of the information will be compiled."
The first financial disclosure, set to go sometime next week to meet a March 25 deadline, will outline the status of the city's sewer and wastewater departments.
Kommi said the Continuing Disclosure Agreements, or CDAs, have been in production for the past weeks. When a bond is issued, an issuer agrees to annually submit the CDA, which includes financial information.
The CDA for the general fund bonds is due April 11 and could also lack key statistics, Kommi said.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre said the information packets will be the most current and accurate disclosures out of the city in the past three years.
There are, however, penalties for not including all information in the CDA.
In future bond offerings, the city will be required to detail what information was not included, Kommi said.
Amy Doppelt, managing director for Fitch Ratings-San Francisco, said that seeing the incomplete information over consecutive years could raise some eyebrows.
"It's not something if it is a one-year exception. But if it's year after year, then we would start to think that there is something awry," Doppelt said.
Fitch Ratings Services downgraded the city's credit rating in February.
Councilwoman Donna Frye on Wednesday issued a memo to Mayor Dick Murphy, Aguirre and council members questioning whether these forms were to be released.
After hearing that the disclosure forms were being prepared, Frye expressed dissatisfaction that the City Council is not being kept up to date on disclosures.
"Now we are less than a week away, council is on recess, surely someone among our high-price consultants must have known that these statements were going to be due soon," Frye said.
Kommi said Frye and the council were not notified because the "City Council does not approve the annual reports. This goes under the city manager's signature."
Frye said this is unsatisfactory.
"The manager works for the mayor and council," Frye said. "This is how we got into this mess, in part -- because certain people decided that other people didn't need to know everything."

Feds could look to send message without punishing San Diego taxpayers
By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, March 23, 2005
Being a municipality may be the only good thing the city of San Diego has going for it while awaiting action from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Securities experts believe that possible punishments resulting from SEC investigations tend to be lighter on cities and counties -- specifically in levying monetary fines -- than on private businesses.
"It's important to remember that the city is not a company with shareholders," said Jonathan Schwartz, a Los Angeles-based securities lawyer and former SEC prosecutor.
"All of the bills of the city are paid by taxes," Schwartz said.
Cities are supported by taxpayers who are obligated by law to pay for budgetary shortcomings, while a company is financially supported by stockholders that gain financially in the good years and sell off when things look grim.
San Diego may escape paying heavy assessments because the burden would eventually fall on the backs of taxpayers, Schwartz said.
The real punch of the enforcement -- which is what Wall Street investors are seeking -- will most likely come out of action from the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI.
This kind of proceeding, called a "parallel investigation," has become more common in recent years, and the process of simultaneously issuing findings is also becoming more prevalent, legal experts say.
SEC investigation
The city of San Diego is currently being investigated by the SEC for allegedly falsifying financial disclosures to Wall Street when floating nearly $550 million in bonds between April 2002 and May 2003. The SEC is responsible for civil investigations.
Some City Hall watchers say the agency is getting closer to taking an enforcement action, and speculation has surfaced that the city may be facing stiff fines.
David M. Greenberg, a San Francisco-based securities lawyer and former chief enforcement attorney for the SEC, said that heavy fines on a city are not likely.
"It's not usual for them to go after a municipality," Greenberg said. "I could see an argument that it would be inappropriate to have the citizenry pay something like that."
Finance attorneys say the commission will be torn between helping the city solve its financial imbroglio and sending a stern warning to municipalities borrowing money that false financial disclosures are met with heavy punishment.
Schwartz stressed that the role of the SEC is to ensure investor protection, and a heavy fine could move the city closer to bankruptcy and in turn jeopardize its ability to pay off debts.
"That could send a shockwave across the municipal bond market," Schwartz said. "That's most likely what the commission is hoping to avoid."
A gentle hand
There is a method the federal agencies can use to ensure financial security of the city while illustrating justice has been served.
Securities experts foresee an injunction by the SEC where the city would not admit to any wrongdoing, but sign a "cease and desist" order, or Section 21C, and promise not to engage in any potentially illicit disclosure acts in the future.
A "cease and desist" order is viewed akin to a contract or court order that carries long-term ramifications. Any future violations of the agreement can be considered a breach or violation and carry individual fines and potentially jail time.
The SEC issued a similar arrangement with the city of Miami, which fell under investigation for falsifying financial disclosure documents when floating more than $125 million worth of bonds in the mid-1990s.
During the commission's investigation in Miami, the city attempted to blame its outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche, for the problems and fired key staff members that had direct access to the filings.
The commission ruled that the "cease-and-desist" action was the proper step regardless of the city's posturing.
"The fact that Miami has pointed its finger at Deloitte and other bond professionals, without taking any responsibility for its own conduct, suggests that Miami has not accepted fully its responsibility for the city's financial disclosures," a commission ruling stated. "The city must be given a clear message that Miami is responsible for the adequacy of its financial disclosures when seeking money from the investing public."
The commission sought no fines from the city of Miami.
Officials in San Diego, unlike leaders in Miami, have not removed all key city officials that took part in the alleged falsifications.
Full compliance
Lynne Turner, head of the city's audit committee and former chief accountant for the SEC, told San Diego City Council members on March 8 that their cooperation with the investigation has not met the commission's idea of full compliance.
Just days earlier, Mayor Dick Murphy and two council members met with the city's outside auditor, KPMG, the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's office to discuss compliance.
A number of SEC investigations in recent years where private companies have failed to give timely cooperation have led to an increase in fines and harsher penalties.
The city being a municipality, however, may provide some protection from heavier fines, said Patrick Shea, a federally appointed attorney that represented cities, school districts and special groups in the Orange County bankruptcy, in which the SEC played an investigative role.
"It doesn't help to victimize the taxpayer," Shea said.
Shea noted, however, that city employees in Orange County were fully compliant, and that no specially called meetings between Orange County leaders and commission investigators took place.
Comprehensive enforcement
To address concerns on Wall Street that the disclosure issues have not been fully remedied, the commission has more tools available.
The SEC reserves the right to tailor "cease-and-desist" orders or injunctions based on the severity and malicious nature of the falsification, said Dennis Stubblefield, a San Diego-based securities lawyer and former-enforcement attorney for the SEC.
For example, the commission can impose more stringent disclosure guidelines on the city.
The commission also holds the authority to appoint a receiver, lawyer or accountant to essentially clean house in City Hall and ensure full disclosure, Stubblefield said.
"The purpose of this kind of action is to specifically restore confidence with investors," he said.
A one-two punch
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney and the FBI, responsible for criminal investigations, are also investigating the city for possible fraudulent activity.
White-collar crime experts say that the SEC and U.S. Attorney's presence at the same time illustrate an attempt to complete both tasks at once.
"The two agencies may be investigating the very same allegation -- the fraud or falsity in financial disclosures," said Bryan Daly, former assistant U.S. Attorney and white collar crime defense attorney at Los-Angeles-based Beck, DeCorso, Daly, Kreindler and Harris.
The U.S. Attorney's office may issue more indictments against city leaders to forcefully send a message to other municipalities seeking money from Wall Street that full and accurate financial disclosures are essential, Daly said.
Daly said this kind of "global" approach by the SEC and the U.S. Attorney may be the kind of comprehensive action that would be most effective in sending a message while not disrupting municipal investment markets.
"I think that it is more common for the SEC and U.S. Attorney to do these cases in parallel," Daly said. "It puts the people that are charged or under investigation into a bit of a box."
Schwartz, the former SEC prosecutor, said parallel action would send a message without financially crippling the city of San Diego.
"That would be the way to insulate the municipality, to say that there were these bad people, and not crush the city," Schwartz said.

Election crisis focuses critical crosshairs on city attorney
By Scott Lewis, San Diego Daily Transcript, November 12, 2004
As the courts prepare to grapple with an apparent discrepancy between city policies that threatens to delay, if not derail, the certification of a new mayor, increasingly anxious observers have directed their frustrations with the situation at the city attorney's office.
The city clerk Friday received a second lawsuit alleging that the Nov. 2 election was illegal, this time invoking federal voting rights protections. The first lawsuit filed Nov. 9 was scheduled for a hearing Monday.
Eleven days after voters went to the polls, a winner in the race between incumbent Mayor Dick Murphy, Supervisor Ron Roberts and write-in candidate Donna Frye, is still unclear.
And while the uncertainty continued, many questioned how the city attorney's office had not helped correct potentially troubling inconsistencies between the city's charter and its separate municipal code.
Why, for instance, a 2002 California Supreme Court decision -- which has become a crucial part of the argument in the two lawsuits seeking to invalidate the Nov. 2 election -- did not register with the city attorney was of particular concern.
"I think the entire city, based on the information we have received, is wondering how this error could have occurred," said Mitch Mitchell, vice president of public policy at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. "It appears the city attorney did not provide the level of information and research necessary to prevent this from happening."
Officially, the only thing that's happening is the long tedious verification of the nearly 150,000 votes Frye might have received as a write-in candidate. If all votes are hers, she might hold on to the razor-thin lead she holds over Murphy.
But the legal concerns raised about the election has provoked large demonstrations from Frye's supporters, who by the end of the business week were holding vigils outside the Registrar of Voters office.
Both lawsuits point to a section of the city's charter that appears to limit the number of candidates eligible for the office of mayor after a primary election for the post has been held.
In 1985 that section of the charter, apparently, had no authority because a California Supreme Court decision forced the city to accommodate write in candidates for all elections.
But in 2002, a new California Supreme Court decision, this time originating from a San Francisco case, declared that cities could once again prohibit write-in candidates from runoff elections.
The question is, did the 2002 ruling give the charter back its authority to limit candidates in a runoff election. If it did, the document's nearly 20-year innocuous conflict with city policy suddenly might have become a potentially significant issue in need of attention.
"At the time it may not have seemed like a priority, but as part of good case management as an attorney, you have to wrap up all the loose ends," said Lisa Briggs, the executive director of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and an attorney. "You cannot ignore things like this because it can come back and bite you. And I can say it appears we've been bitten."
Sources at City Hall said the city attorney's office briefly dealt with the issue in 2002 after the case came to the city attorney's attention, but it was not pursued.
City Attorney Casey Gwinn said, in an earlier interview, that he was not sure that a discrepancy exists between the city charter and the municipal code or that the charter expressly forbids write-in candidates from participating in and winning a runoff election for mayor.
"It's a close call. I don't think it's completely clear one way or another," Gwinn said.
"The mayor and City Council could have made a decision to amend their charter or change the municipal code but the last time the issue was put before the council was in 1985," he said.
Regardless, Gwinn said, it was City Clerk Charles Abdelnour's decision to allow Frye to file papers as a write-in candidate.
And the city attorney's office was not asked for its opinion on the matter, Gwinn said.
"Even had I issued the legal opinion, I have no reason to believe it would have been followed."
But Abdelnour claimed in a memorandum to the City Council that he had made his decision to accept Frye's candidacy after "discussions with the city attorney's staff."
Critics maintained that many of the problems the city now faces had spiraled out of control because of Gwinn's lack of attention on the civil as opposed to the prosecutorial duties of the city attorney.
Executive Assistant City Attorney Leslie Devaney, Gwinn's top deputy, said in an earlier interview that the civil side of the city attorney's office "suffered" because of Gwinn's focus on the criminal side.
She had also described a culture in the city attorney's office in which Gwinn required deputies to stay mute on issues unless they were prompted to respond to formal requests for opinions.
"I don't think he intended it to be problematic," Devaney said. "We have an amazing office that has done some outstanding legal work, but the public won't know that if we're not more transparent."
In the other major city race still undecided, Devaney trails consumer fraud attorney Mike Aguirre by a thin margin in the race to succeed Gwinn as city attorney. Some votes still remain to be counted.
Aguirre said the 2002 court case concerning write-in candidates should have provoked a review by the city attorney's office.
"When lawyers say they are practicing law, you do that by keeping abreast of cases and assessing how they affect your clients interests," Aguirre said.
The Chamber's Mitchell said residents have learned a remarkable amount about the role of the city attorney over the last year.
"One of the things everyone is expecting of the new city attorney is that the civil side of the office has to receive a tremendous amount of focus because it affects the citizens in a number of ways," Mitchell said.
The Taxpayers Association's Briggs said the city attorney might have headed off the current political crisis.
"Right now the city of San Diego doesn't have the luxury of this kind of chaos," she said.

Aguirre tells nominee-checking goals, Council divided in views on his policy
By Jennifer Vigil, Union Tribune, March 9, 2005
As part of his new plan to check candidates for San Diego boards and commissions, City Attorney Michael Aguirre said yesterday his staff will examine résumé claims and individual qualifications of the nominees.
He said the scrutiny will apply to at least 22 of the higher profile boards or those that handle funding and property decisions "that have a major financial impact on the city."
Some on San Diego City Council cash in on contentious retirement benefit
By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, March 9, 2005
Excerpt: Members of the San Diego City Council have taken advantage of a controversial retirement benefit approved over the past 10 years that critics argue is driving up the pension systems' $1.37 billion shortfall.
Past and present members of the council have purchased a total of 30.54 years of pension service credits, many at prices lower than what benefits cost to pay out.
As part of the City Manager's I agreement city employees have been allowed to buy pension credits -- which equate to years of service -- for a cost lower than what it will take to pay the benefits after retirement.
The years of service purchased are compiled with the years an employee actually worked. This total is used in the pension multiplier formula, which calculates how much employees receive in their pension packages.
As part of 1997's City Manager's I, an agreement to lower a pension funding safety net in exchange for increased benefits, city general service and legislative employees were given the opportunity to purchase a year of credit at 15 percent of their annual salary, said Lorraine Chapin, general counsel for the San Diego City Employees Retirement System.
For example, an employee making $100,000 per year is able to buy a year of pension service for $15,000.
The City Manager's I agreement was made between the San Diego City Council and SDCERS.
According to public documents requested by The Daily Transcript, council members that purchased years of service at the 15 percent rate include:
# Councilwoman Toni Atkins purchased .19 of a year of service on June 23, 2003.
# Councilman Ralph Inzunza purchased 4.67 years of service on June 20, 2002.
# The late Councilman Charles Lewis purchased 5 years of service on June 12, 2003.
# Councilman Jim Madaffer purchased 5 years of service on Jan. 4, 2002.
# Councilman Brian Maienschein purchased .92 of a year of service on Aug. 13, 2002.
# Councilman Michael Zucchet purchased 2.12 years of service on July 1, 2003 The total number of years purchased at 15 percent is 17.9 years.
April Boling, a local accountant and chairman of the Pension Reform Committee, said that when pension credits are purchased at a discount, the unfunded liability rises because people are paying into the system a smaller amount than what they will eventually receive.
"At a discounted rate, the funded liability is by definition going to end up being short when the service years are purchased at a discount," Boling said. "The city and taxpayers have to make up the difference."
The city of San Diego uses what is referred to as a defined benefit plan. Here, employees are guaranteed a set retirement package when they stop working.
The system is funded using an actuary that determines how much an employee and the city must contribute to balance with defined benefits.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre, who has been a vocal opponent of the current plan, said that since the inception of the program, 2,900 employees have purchased more than 13,000 years of pension credits at a discount of $120 million.
"I think that this is something that is going to have to be reviewed in conflict rules," Aguirre said.
In September 2003, as a result of further increased benefits due to litigation, the cost for service years for general members was increased by SDCERS to 27 percent. A new category was also created for legislative members offering pension credits at 50 percent of annual salary, Chapin said.
Council members that purchased hours at the rate include:
# Mayor Dick Murphy, who purchased 5 years of service on Jan. 15, 2005.
# Councilwoman Atkins, who purchased 5 years of service on Nov. 5, 2003.
# Councilwoman Donna Frye, who purchased 1.83 years of service on Nov. 7, 2003.
# Councilman Michael Zucchet, who purchased .81 of a year of service on Oct. 20, 2003. The total hours purchased at the 50 percent rate is 12.64 years.
At the higher rate, the costs to the unfunded liability are greatly reduced.Memo From Mayor's Top Aide Stirs Fires,Kern's information request in wake of federal inquiry draws complaints of unethical behavior and concerns surrounding deleted data
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org
A memo sent from Mayor Dick Murphy's chief of staff to the city of San Diego's data storage house days after a federal inquiry reached its way to the mayor's office has created a stir in City Hall -- especially from Murphy's political rival, City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
In a Feb. 18 memo written in techie-speak from the mayor's top aide, John Kern, to the president of the San Diego Data Processing Corp., Kern requests that back-up tapes be made for the servers of the nine council offices and the mayor -- tapes that would contain council e-mails, calendars and possibly sensitive personal information.
"The request would appear to be a request for all of the council members' e-mails and files without the council members' knowledge," Frye said.
The mayor's office said Kern was only fulfilling his obligations under a Feb. 11 subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office. In the subpoena, federal agents requested documents and correspondence of another Murphy aide, ballpark administrator Dennis Gibson, as well as documents and correspondence related to the three major credit rating firms and the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System. The subpoenas request documents from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present in the subpoena, as does Kern's memo.
But Frye believes there's no innocence in the departing Kern's actions, and that the information gained from the files of all council offices could have been priceless as he restarts his political consulting firm when he leaves Murphy's office April 1.
"The reality is that these are political offices. We can try to pretend that they're not. We can pretend that everybody gets along, but the fact is that Mr. Kern will be leaving the mayor's office to resume the campaign consultant business. The idea of the potential to take with him the entire City Council e-mail and files from January 2000 to the present, it raises serious ethical questions," she said.
One memo, many interpretations
The data processing corporation is a city-run, non-profit organization that handles the city's information technology and data storage.
Tom Fleming, its president, said that he believed Kern didn't know what he was asking for in the memo. He said Kern was simply looking for information specifically related to the credit rating firms named in the subpoena.
"The servers he was asking for contained a lot of other data. And he now understands what he wants from his request," Fleming said.
When pressed on further technical details, he deferred questions to the corporation's attorney, Don Del Rio. Del Rio didn't return several calls for this story.
Two experts interviewed said that because of the highly-technical language used in the memo, it's likely that the author had a strong command of the technical issues at hand or had the help of an informed advisor.
"It was John Kern's intent to save only files from the mayor's office in order to comply with the U.S. Attorney's subpoena to the city. It was never intended to obtain any City Council files," said Colleen Windsor, Murphy's spokeswoman.
'This stinks'
But when run past former data processing employee and board member, Phil Thalheimer, the memo raised additional red flags.
The one-paragraph memo requests "effective immediately, that you halt the over-writing and remove from circulation any and all back up tapes" from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present.
Thalheimer, who lost a bid to unseat the Murphy-supported Councilman Scott Peters last fall, left the DPC in March 2000. But when he was there, he said it was practice not to overwrite tapes for the council members or mayor -- instead, the tapes were always preserved. Overwriting takes place when information is saved in the short-term on tape, but later deleted to make room for more data.
"The request is telling me that they are missing information and somebody's realized that," Thalheimer said. "Somebody knew that they were deleting information."
The only way that over-writing would be performed, he said, would be if the city manager or mayor's office were to directly request it.
"My initial reaction is that this stinks," Thalheimer said after being showed the memo.
Questions surrounding the deletion of city files were raised once already in January, when e-mails turned up during investigations revealed a large file cleaning took place in city departments last December. Officials said it was part of a routine cleaning to open up space on city computers.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating errors and omissions made in the city's financial statements given to potential investors, while the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office are investigating possible public corruption. The investigations and revelations of errors in the financial statements have caused the city's credit rating to essentially be frozen, leaving it with little access to borrow funds for long-term projects.
Kern also copied the memo to Del Rio, Eileen Hemenway and Pam Noughton, who is representing Murphy in the ongoing investigations. It is unclear who Hemenway is, though she is mentioned once without a title in recent DPC board meeting minutes.
The Feb. 11 subpoena came after suspicions were raised that the mayor's office knew of the city's growing pension problems in 2002, before public disclosures for ballpark bonds reported financial data that was rosier than reality.
DPC has also had its fair share of controversy. Former CEO Roger Talamantez resigned last year after an audit revealed that higher-ups in the organization ran up expensive bills on lavish partying and eating.
Howard Stapleton, who works in the city's information technology services, said that it could be that Kern was being extra cautious in requesting that over-writing be stopped.
"My guess would be that given that there's been an SEC investigation, that people would over-retain info now I wouldn't think that in this environment there would be overwriting going on,"