From Libraries to Lawyers: Shifting Budget Priorities
May 1, 2011
by Liam Dillon
Voice of San Diego
San Diego's library system has eroded over the past six years. Mayor Jerry Sanders freely admits it.
"We've taken them down to a very small percentage of what they used to be," Sanders said at a recent budget forum.
Libraries used to be a greater budget priority. While nearly every city department has seen cuts during a decade of San Diego budget deficits, reductions to libraries have been deeper. Its budget has decreased from $38.7 million in Sanders' first budget in 2007 to $30.1 million under the mayor's proposal for next year. Its percentage of the city's day-to-day operating budget will have g0ne down by more than 1 percent, too.
As libraries have lost, others have gained.
In 2007, the City Attorney's Office received $36.2 million, or $2.5 million less than libraries. Its proposed 2012 allocation will be $42.4 million, or $12 million more than libraries. The percentage the attorney's office receives of the city budget has gone up by 0.3 percent since 2007 as well.
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith argues his department's budget has increased because of costs outside his control, such as paying for a share of the city's growing retirement obligations. Beyond the vagaries of the city budgeting, Sanders, City Council members and even a key library supporter defended the city attorney for keeping the city out of trouble and from racking up outside legal costs.
The downside of cutting libraries is clear. They'll be closed. For attorneys, the effects are less obvious. A smaller legal department could mean lost lawsuits, missed opportunities or bigger bills for outside contracts. But as the mayor and council stress the need to protect public safety and other front line city services in a time of continued budget pressure, they'll have to come to terms with the realization that the city's team of lawyers costs increasingly more than its team of librarians.
The City Attorney's Office files or defends lawsuits involving the city, provides legal advice to the mayor, council and all departments, and prosecutes about 35,000 misdemeanor cases a year. Good lawyers cost money, Goldsmith said in an interview. The fact that they have cost more in the past six years, he said, has little to do with him.
Nearly the entire $4 million hike in his budget this year came from costs associated with rising pension and other retirement obligations, an increase he couldn't do anything about. Further, Goldsmith contended his office took that hit more than others because its costs are almost all personnel.
Goldsmith's office has spent less than its budget the last two years. He's left some positions empty and replaced higher paid jobs with lower level ones. Goldsmith also said he decreased costs for outside attorneys, but those savings primarily appear in other department's budgets.
"Each year we've come in with a plan on how we're going to do our fair share," Goldsmith said.
But for some, it's not fair enough. At a recent community budget forum, Sanders answered a written question about a chart that showed the city attorney's budget larger than the library's.
"Please explain how this is shared pain," the question asked.
Sanders responded that attorneys are expensive, and it costs more to hire outside counsel than do legal work in-house...
Showing posts with label San Diego City Attorney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Diego City Attorney. Show all posts
Monday, May 02, 2011
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
How can this be? Jan Goldsmith is the new Mike Aguirre? Or is Mayor Sanders the problem?
Fight Like It's 2007
Voice of San Diego
During Mike Aguirre's term as city attorney, nobody dogged him as diligently as John Kaheny.
Kaheny's relentless e-mails sometimes broke news about the city attorney and sometimes spread conspiracy theories more ridiculous than the ones Aguirre was sometimes wont to spin. But always, Kaheny, a former assistant city attorney, was on Aguirre's case and his e-mail list served as an almost daily talking points memo for the ever-growing ranks of Aguirre's dissenters. I don't know that anyone locally has ever so effectively used e-mail, document sharing and media criticism to gore a rival.
Kaheny declared victory months ago when Aguirre lost his re-election bid and he said the network would largely go quiet.
It's back.
In case you hadn't noticed, there seems to be a rising tide of concern about City Attorney Jan Goldsmith along with a growing lack of respect for the mayor. First, months ago Goldsmith infuriated some local opinion leaders and Mayor Jerry Sanders for ruling that the City Council could basically ignore the mayor's recommendations on labor negotiations. This became moot -- this year at least -- when the City Council decided to agree with the mayor unanimously. Nonetheless, the Mayor's Office thought it was a ridiculous opinion and it began to foment unrest about Goldsmith's competence.
Now, Rani Gupta's story Sunday has documented another major rift between the city attorney and mayor.
Gupta reported that the Mayor's Office was struck dumbfounded that its much-championed reforms to the city's controversial DROP benefit for employees would be subject to a vote of those same employees. Where was the city attorney on this?
Key passage in the story:
The news that the DROP changes apparently require a vote of the employees was news to Sanders' office, Chief Operating Officer Jay Goldstone said in an interview last week.
"It was a bombshell that was dropped after the fact," Goldstone said. "I'm not necessarily suggesting we would have taken a different position, but we would have known going in that the imposition was only step one of a two-step process."
Goldstone said it "would have been nice" if Goldsmith's office had told city officials about the requirement beforehand. He added, "I will tell you candidly, they will claim they told us and told our lawyers at least, our negotiators, but we (in the Mayor's Office) were not aware up here."
Several hours later, after a reporter called for comment from the city attorney, Goldstone called back to offer a different version of events, saying a conversation with the city attorney had refreshed his memory about the situation.
Goldstone said that the city's outside attorneys from the firm Burke Williams & Sorensen had talked to SDCERS officials during negotiations and, based on those conversations, had advised that the city had a "very strong argument" that the provision of the city charter requiring a vote didn't apply to the changes the city was seeking to make to DROP.
The City Attorney's Office, Goldstone said, never told city officials or even strongly suggested that changing DROP required an employee vote.
Kaheny, the prolific e-mailer, grabbed the story and sent it to his network with a note essentially hinting at incompetence in the City Attorney's Office (or, maybe worse for Kaheny's group, that the office has yet to restore competence). Since Jan Goldsmith, the current city attorney, has Kaheny to thank as much as anyone for getting the job, this was a potentially hurtful development. If questions about his own abilities to run the office become more mainstream, watch out.
Here was Kaheny's note:
I have no clue what is going on. It appears that the institutional memory was completely destroyed by Gwinn and Aguirre and that Goldsmith hasn't quite figured that out yet.
Wow. Someone in Goldsmith's office responded to Kaheny assuring the curmudgeon that Goldsmith was not to blame and attacking the mayor. Kaheny passed it along. Here was the note:
No John... Jan told them. Joan Dawson delivered the message... Sanders did not want to hear it & Bill Kay told Sanders what he wanted to hear so they moved forward. Kay & his firm are also handling litigation not the City Attorney...
Bill Kay is the city's labor negotiator. Yes, what we have here is a full-throated battle between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's Office complete with accusations of reckless political agendas and incompetence! I went to D.C. last week and came back to 2007!
Kaheny responded to the anonymous city attorney staffer.
If the City Attorney so advised why was it not it not in writing and made public? Inquiring minds need to know.
Stay tuned. This isn't just insider intrigue. Aguirre was supposedly the main reason the mayor had trouble implementing his reforms and fixes for the city. Now one of the mayor's most prominent initiatives -- to roll back the most controversial of all city employee compensation issues -- might not work and he's blaming the new city attorney.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
May 27, 2009
Voice of San Diego
During Mike Aguirre's term as city attorney, nobody dogged him as diligently as John Kaheny.
Kaheny's relentless e-mails sometimes broke news about the city attorney and sometimes spread conspiracy theories more ridiculous than the ones Aguirre was sometimes wont to spin. But always, Kaheny, a former assistant city attorney, was on Aguirre's case and his e-mail list served as an almost daily talking points memo for the ever-growing ranks of Aguirre's dissenters. I don't know that anyone locally has ever so effectively used e-mail, document sharing and media criticism to gore a rival.
Kaheny declared victory months ago when Aguirre lost his re-election bid and he said the network would largely go quiet.
It's back.
In case you hadn't noticed, there seems to be a rising tide of concern about City Attorney Jan Goldsmith along with a growing lack of respect for the mayor. First, months ago Goldsmith infuriated some local opinion leaders and Mayor Jerry Sanders for ruling that the City Council could basically ignore the mayor's recommendations on labor negotiations. This became moot -- this year at least -- when the City Council decided to agree with the mayor unanimously. Nonetheless, the Mayor's Office thought it was a ridiculous opinion and it began to foment unrest about Goldsmith's competence.
Now, Rani Gupta's story Sunday has documented another major rift between the city attorney and mayor.
Gupta reported that the Mayor's Office was struck dumbfounded that its much-championed reforms to the city's controversial DROP benefit for employees would be subject to a vote of those same employees. Where was the city attorney on this?
Key passage in the story:
The news that the DROP changes apparently require a vote of the employees was news to Sanders' office, Chief Operating Officer Jay Goldstone said in an interview last week.
"It was a bombshell that was dropped after the fact," Goldstone said. "I'm not necessarily suggesting we would have taken a different position, but we would have known going in that the imposition was only step one of a two-step process."
Goldstone said it "would have been nice" if Goldsmith's office had told city officials about the requirement beforehand. He added, "I will tell you candidly, they will claim they told us and told our lawyers at least, our negotiators, but we (in the Mayor's Office) were not aware up here."
Several hours later, after a reporter called for comment from the city attorney, Goldstone called back to offer a different version of events, saying a conversation with the city attorney had refreshed his memory about the situation.
Goldstone said that the city's outside attorneys from the firm Burke Williams & Sorensen had talked to SDCERS officials during negotiations and, based on those conversations, had advised that the city had a "very strong argument" that the provision of the city charter requiring a vote didn't apply to the changes the city was seeking to make to DROP.
The City Attorney's Office, Goldstone said, never told city officials or even strongly suggested that changing DROP required an employee vote.
Kaheny, the prolific e-mailer, grabbed the story and sent it to his network with a note essentially hinting at incompetence in the City Attorney's Office (or, maybe worse for Kaheny's group, that the office has yet to restore competence). Since Jan Goldsmith, the current city attorney, has Kaheny to thank as much as anyone for getting the job, this was a potentially hurtful development. If questions about his own abilities to run the office become more mainstream, watch out.
Here was Kaheny's note:
I have no clue what is going on. It appears that the institutional memory was completely destroyed by Gwinn and Aguirre and that Goldsmith hasn't quite figured that out yet.
Wow. Someone in Goldsmith's office responded to Kaheny assuring the curmudgeon that Goldsmith was not to blame and attacking the mayor. Kaheny passed it along. Here was the note:
No John... Jan told them. Joan Dawson delivered the message... Sanders did not want to hear it & Bill Kay told Sanders what he wanted to hear so they moved forward. Kay & his firm are also handling litigation not the City Attorney...
Bill Kay is the city's labor negotiator. Yes, what we have here is a full-throated battle between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's Office complete with accusations of reckless political agendas and incompetence! I went to D.C. last week and came back to 2007!
Kaheny responded to the anonymous city attorney staffer.
If the City Attorney so advised why was it not it not in writing and made public? Inquiring minds need to know.
Stay tuned. This isn't just insider intrigue. Aguirre was supposedly the main reason the mayor had trouble implementing his reforms and fixes for the city. Now one of the mayor's most prominent initiatives -- to roll back the most controversial of all city employee compensation issues -- might not work and he's blaming the new city attorney.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
May 27, 2009
Friday, September 05, 2008
Mike Aguirre wins regarding police retirement payments
A court has dismissed a lawsuit by police against San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre. Aguirre has been trying to reduce pension benefits given away in 2002 by Mayor Dick Murphy, with support from Ann Smith of the MEA. The purpose of the giveaway was to keep unions quiet about a billion-dollar underfunding of the city pension system.Voice of San Diego
by WILL CARLESS
September 4, 2008
Court Loss for City Cops
In another legal loss for city cops, a federal court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by more than 1,500 city police officers against City Attorney Mike Aguirre and the city's retirement system.
The police officers had argued that their federal constitutional rights were violated when, in 2005, the city reduced or eliminated their employment benefits by mandating that police officers pay higher payments into their retirement plans, thus reducing the take-home pay of many officers.
In her decision yesterday, Judge Marilyn Huff dismissed the case, referring in her decision to an earlier decision she made in a related case brought by the Police Officers Association, the union that represents city police officers.
Huff ruled in that case that there was insufficient proof that the employment benefits that were reduced in 2005 were vested constitutional rights, and that the under-funding of the pension system doesn't implicate federal constitutional rights.
This was the second court loss for city police officers in two weeks. On Aug. 21, another federal court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against the city by more than 700 officers for breach of contract and unpaid overtime.
"So much for Aguirre never winning a lawsuit," said Executive Assistant City Attorney Don McGrath, who represented Aguirre in the lawsuit. McGrath said that, by his count, the POA has lost six of the seven lawsuits it brought against the city and Aguirre.
by WILL CARLESS
September 4, 2008
Court Loss for City Cops
In another legal loss for city cops, a federal court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by more than 1,500 city police officers against City Attorney Mike Aguirre and the city's retirement system.
The police officers had argued that their federal constitutional rights were violated when, in 2005, the city reduced or eliminated their employment benefits by mandating that police officers pay higher payments into their retirement plans, thus reducing the take-home pay of many officers.
In her decision yesterday, Judge Marilyn Huff dismissed the case, referring in her decision to an earlier decision she made in a related case brought by the Police Officers Association, the union that represents city police officers.
Huff ruled in that case that there was insufficient proof that the employment benefits that were reduced in 2005 were vested constitutional rights, and that the under-funding of the pension system doesn't implicate federal constitutional rights.
This was the second court loss for city police officers in two weeks. On Aug. 21, another federal court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against the city by more than 700 officers for breach of contract and unpaid overtime.
"So much for Aguirre never winning a lawsuit," said Executive Assistant City Attorney Don McGrath, who represented Aguirre in the lawsuit. McGrath said that, by his count, the POA has lost six of the seven lawsuits it brought against the city and Aguirre.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
SD City unions prefer secret pension deals; Mike Aguirre opposes them
San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre
Metropolitan Employees Association duo Ann Smith-Judie Italiano continue their odd alliances with Republican judges. The alliance began with the billion-dollar pension deal supported by the MEA bosses and former San Diego mayor Dick Murphy. And it continues with Judie/Ann's newly-forged alliance with Jan Goldsmith.
The bizarre alliance is apparently built on the expectation that San Diegans will continue to sacrifice their own well-being and that of their city, and will go back to using the City Attorney's office to cover-up wrongdoing in city government, in order to keep Judie/Ann in power.
And it involves a major flip-flop on the party of candidate Goldsmith. Scott Lewis explains:
The Union Pawns
By Scott Lewis
July 9, 2008
Voice of San Diego
It was rather amusing to see Judge Jan Goldsmith tout his endorsement from the San Diego Municipal Employees Association...
The best radio ad of the campaign season was Mr. Goldsmith's very own takedown of his rivals. Remember, he used a circus theme to paint City Hall as a mess...
[Quote from Jan Goldsmith's radio ad:]
In ring two, see Scott "the wonder pony" Peters jump through hoops, straddle fences and juggle important city issues all to please his labor union handlers.
Now that Goldsmith is the preferred choice of the firefighters union, the police union, and the white-collar City Hall workers, is it no longer so bad to be associated with unions?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Jan Goldsmith, conspiracy theorist and City Attorney candidate
Deferring to the Conspiracy
By Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Jan. 31, 2008
Click HERE for original article.
Of the complaints that San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre must parry or absorb in coming months if he is to keep his job, the most damaging is clearly that the man has no motor control of his accusation muscle...
So it was with a bit of surprise last week that I learned that Aguirre's most prominent declared rival to his seat might have a similar proclivity toward the unsubstantiated accusation.
Former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith, the chosen one of the local Republican Party, got himself all fired up about the surprising news that City Councilman Brian Maienschein, a fellow Republican with much the same base of support, was entering the race...
It was really Maienschein's money that so upset Goldsmith.
The city councilman had the good fortune to run for re-election to his post in 2004 against no one in particular. People like giving money to politicians and so, like most incumbents, he was able to raise a ton of money for the non-existent race. That money -- $250,000 -- sits now waiting for Maienschein's call.
The city had, in 2004, passed a law that prohibited people from raising money to run for office more than a year before the election for the office they aspired to occupy.
...the director of the Ethics Commission responded to my inquiry about it with a statement that the law seemed pretty clear that money from previous campaigns could be transferred into new ones.
That Maienschein could use that money in the race for city attorney infuriated Goldsmith. And with that came the conspiracy theory and the accusation.
"I would request that the Ethics Commission be fair and impartial in addressing this issue. The appearance is that the Commission is stretching to find ways to allow an incumbent Councilman to do something that is unavailable to other candidates," Goldsmith wrote to Fulhorst and then sent to me.
I had a chance to ask Goldsmith about this.
He was accusing the Ethics Commission of working in collusion with Maienschein to further his political goals. Is this a window into the future? Would he, as city attorney, also defer to the conspiracy theory to make his points?
He said he never wrote that it was an actual conspiracy.
It just looked that way...
And then he got to the other angle about this that bothered him. How had this potential wrinkle in the election law not been ironed out before? This offered Goldsmith another justification for his candidacy -- he could spot things like this.
The City Council didn't know what it was doing passing the law... about the 12-month limit for raising funds.
"Why didn't anyone, in 2004 when this was passed, not ask the question that this doesn't provide an exception or clarity about transfers for money from previous campaigns? There were three lawyers on the council and they couldn't see this?" Goldsmith asked.
He said had he been city attorney, he would have made sure to tie that loose end.
What he didn't realize is that the issue had in fact been brought up. Not by a lawyer on the council, but by the only person who at times seems to be able to ask questions like one: City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Former City Attorney Casey Gwinn actually issued an opinion about the matter.
Could the city keep people like Maienschein from transferring money from a previous campaign to a new one?
Nope, Gwinn's deputy determined...
By Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Jan. 31, 2008
Click HERE for original article.
Of the complaints that San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre must parry or absorb in coming months if he is to keep his job, the most damaging is clearly that the man has no motor control of his accusation muscle...
So it was with a bit of surprise last week that I learned that Aguirre's most prominent declared rival to his seat might have a similar proclivity toward the unsubstantiated accusation.
Former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith, the chosen one of the local Republican Party, got himself all fired up about the surprising news that City Councilman Brian Maienschein, a fellow Republican with much the same base of support, was entering the race...
It was really Maienschein's money that so upset Goldsmith.
The city councilman had the good fortune to run for re-election to his post in 2004 against no one in particular. People like giving money to politicians and so, like most incumbents, he was able to raise a ton of money for the non-existent race. That money -- $250,000 -- sits now waiting for Maienschein's call.
The city had, in 2004, passed a law that prohibited people from raising money to run for office more than a year before the election for the office they aspired to occupy.
...the director of the Ethics Commission responded to my inquiry about it with a statement that the law seemed pretty clear that money from previous campaigns could be transferred into new ones.
That Maienschein could use that money in the race for city attorney infuriated Goldsmith. And with that came the conspiracy theory and the accusation.
"I would request that the Ethics Commission be fair and impartial in addressing this issue. The appearance is that the Commission is stretching to find ways to allow an incumbent Councilman to do something that is unavailable to other candidates," Goldsmith wrote to Fulhorst and then sent to me.
I had a chance to ask Goldsmith about this.
He was accusing the Ethics Commission of working in collusion with Maienschein to further his political goals. Is this a window into the future? Would he, as city attorney, also defer to the conspiracy theory to make his points?
He said he never wrote that it was an actual conspiracy.
It just looked that way...
And then he got to the other angle about this that bothered him. How had this potential wrinkle in the election law not been ironed out before? This offered Goldsmith another justification for his candidacy -- he could spot things like this.
The City Council didn't know what it was doing passing the law... about the 12-month limit for raising funds.
"Why didn't anyone, in 2004 when this was passed, not ask the question that this doesn't provide an exception or clarity about transfers for money from previous campaigns? There were three lawyers on the council and they couldn't see this?" Goldsmith asked.
He said had he been city attorney, he would have made sure to tie that loose end.
What he didn't realize is that the issue had in fact been brought up. Not by a lawyer on the council, but by the only person who at times seems to be able to ask questions like one: City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Former City Attorney Casey Gwinn actually issued an opinion about the matter.
Could the city keep people like Maienschein from transferring money from a previous campaign to a new one?
Nope, Gwinn's deputy determined...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)