Greg and Cheryl Cox both play the "look the other way while our lawyers do the dirty work" game

The San Diego Union Tribune hides the wrondoing of public officials it likes. But the SDUT did give a perfect description of how those officials go about their business in the first paragraph of an article on April 22, 2007:

"San Diego County Officials aren't actively helping the Chargers find a new stadium site--they met only once with team representatives last year--yet since September they've paid $109,787 to two consultants who specialize in stadium deals."

The SDUT article goes on to note that a "one-hour phone call at a cost of $585" was part of the bill for something the county supervisors pretend NOT to be working on.

Gee whiz, you don't think Greg Cox and the all-Republican board of supervisors is trying to steer a stadium deal to Chula Vista, where his wife is mayor, do you? These consultants, who cost an average of $506 per hour, won't steer the Chargers away from cities with Democratic mayors, will they? Well, if they do, it's probably good for the Democrats. The Chargers have a tendency to drain money from any city that builds them a stadium.

San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox pays public money to lawyers to get him what he wants, but pretends he himself is not involved. This is exactly how his wife, Cheryl Cox, operated in Chula Vista Elementary School District with her lawyers
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.

The Cox Collaborative sets up lawyers with an assignment, then continues to channel public money to those lawyers while looking the other way. A public employee is appointed as go-between so that the Coxes don't have to communicate directly with the lawyers. They can claim ignorance of all the dirty deeds--unless someone actually provides the Coxes with the proof of the misdeeds.

The Coxes were provided with proof that Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell (AKA Minnehan) obstructed justice and suborned perjury on Cheryl Cox's behalf. Rather than investigate, Cheryl Cox said that the lawyers had told her not to talk about the matter.

Cute little scheme, isn't it? Greg and Cheryl aren't as dumb as they pretend to be. They are, however, every bit as secretive and dishonest as they appear to be.

Cheryl Cox and her posse should repay Chula Vista Elementary School District

Cheryl Cox collected about $30,000 for approving the wrongdoing of the CVESD board for six years.

Cox kept her mouth shut about serious illegal actions, faithfully bowing to the wishes of the board majority comprised of Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, and Larry Cunningham, even when the law required her to do otherwise. Cox proved herself to be unfailingly loyal to developers and political operatives. Then she collected her reward. She's now mayor of Chula Vista.

Here's my suggestion, Cheryl. You harmed the children of Chula Vista with your loyalty to the politically powerful. Don't you feel even a little guilt that you walked over those kids to get where you are now? If you do, why not return the money you were paid as their trustee? While you're at it, why not ask Judd, Smith, Cunningham and Bertha Lopez to return their ill-gotten gains, also? Judd and Smith must have collected well over $100,000 between them. Perhaps they could hire someone to teach the employees of CVESD about their obligations under the law, and their obligations to the children of those who pay their salaries.

Abuse of power and public money in Chula Vista since Cheryl Cox took office

Citizens are starting to notice that Chula Vista has been giving away money to Cheryl Cox's friends since Cox became mayor. At the same time, Cheryl Cox's camp is abusing its power (which includes the power to get Bonnie Dumanis to engage in bizarre attacks on Cox's political opponents). All this from someone who campaigned on the issues of CHARACTER and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

ELVA GIBSON writes (San Diego Union Tribune letters April 7, 2007):

Regarding “Ex-mayoral aide pleads not guilty to perjury in 'political dirty trick' ” (Our Region, April 3):

Am I the only one confused by the article about an unemployed former Chula Vista mayoral aide who has been charged with five felony counts of perjury that could land him in prison? Jason Moore's attorney said this investigation is over whether his client turned in a leave slip before or after the photography incident occurred back in August.

He also said that at no point did the incident being investigated cost taxpayers a penny. I think there clearly is a waste of taxpayers' dollars – specifically, the cost of a six-month investigation about when a time card was turned in. And if there is a conviction, what will be the cost to incarcerate Moore? Isn't a time-card question an issue for Chula Vista's Human Resources Department? Or is it too busy giving golden handshake checks to former city management?

One just has to read the articles about the recent sweetheart deal Chula Vista gave to one of its former employees being investigated over conflict of interest. Let's see, one ex-employee gets a $155,000 payout and annual benefits of nearly $30,000. The other? Well, he gets five felony counts.

I guess the lesson to be learned is that if you are being investigated you should get three high-powered attorneys, and you'll land safely, thanks to a generous golden parachute. Sad.

ELVA GIBSON
San Diego

Re/Max wants a judge to stop the Ummels

Marti Ummel and her husband have been picketing Re/Max Associates in San Diego's north county because deception by a Re/Max real estate agent cost them about $150,000.

"Nobody's going to feel sorry for us," Marti Ummel said to Voice of San Diego's Kelly Bennett, referring to the Ummels' comfortable financial situation. "We can afford to get screwed. But there are other people who can't."

Marti Ummel makes an excellent point. Victims that are the most severely damaged by illegal actions rarely have the ability to do what the Ummels are doing. Most victims don't have the time, money, and emotional fortitude. They have to be at work to survive the financial damage done to them, and they are often emotionallly devastated by violations of law committed against them. Ironically, it is those who are less severely damaged who must challenge wrongdoers on behalf of all victims. To that end, the Ummels have filed suit against Re/Max and their La Costa-based real estate agent/mortgage broker Michael Little.

Kelly Bennett of Voice of San Diego reports:
"Marti Ummel said she asked Little to get an appraisal for at least a month before he finally requested it in July 2005. The Ummels' copy of Little's request for the appraisal shows double underlines and exclamation points next to the notes for the appraiser, John Contento: "Purchase price $1,200,000; Need yesterday -- sorry!"

"The Ummels claim this as evidence that Little influenced the appraisal so that they would feel more comfortable buying the home at that price. Another, almost identically sized, home on the same block had sold six weeks' previously for $1.095 million, but the Ummels say Little didn't tell them about it.

"Marti Ummel said the only way she found out about the recent, lower-priced, sale was by looking at a flier dropped on her doorstep by another Realtor a few weeks after they'd closed the sale.

"Roger Lopez, an appraiser who wasn't involved in the sale, said that requests for price-matching aren't uncommon for appraisers to receive. Because appraisers' businesses depend on being asked to do appraisals by mortgage brokers, they sometimes feel "undue pressure" from the mortgage brokers to match the price they're asking for."

Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Ummel, for informing the public and putting some much-needed pressure on crooked real estate agents. It's clear that Michael Little feels he'll get away with his subterfuge. And quite likely he will. He'll have a huge industry behind him, and as Roger Lopez says, "There's a gray area."

Yes, there is always a gray area. We'll see if the legal system considers Michael Little's behavior to fall inside the gray area, or outside it. It looks like fraud to me.

Re/Max wants a judge to stop the picketing. They want their victims to remain unknown to the public. I'm not sure if they want to change the free-speech provisions of the Constitution, or if they think the judge in the Ummel

Ann Smith is getting her wish--SD is selling its children's inheritance to pay for illegal deal

On Jan. 11, 2007, Andrew Donohue reported the following for Voice of San Diego:

City Prepares to Sell First Batch of Land

The city of San Diego has taken preliminary steps to sell 34 properties -- including raw land, a mobile home park and La Jolla homes -- in an offering that provides a glimpse of what the Mayor's Office will be unloading as it begins to evaluate the city's vast real estate portfolio.

Aides said Mayor Jerry Sanders aims to sell $20 million worth of property in each of the next five years as he attempts to manage the city's fiscal crisis and that the posting was the first of what are likely to be many. Although the city charter forbids Sanders from using land-sale proceeds to directly fund such pressing issues as the $1.4 billion pension deficit or to pay raises for police officers, the additional money could go toward another expensive need on the mayor's extensive wish list: infrastructure projects...

An accompanying photo of the San Ysidro border crossing carries this caption:

A 2,800-square-foot U.S. Border Patrol building at the border with Mexico, and the 4.5-acre parcel it sits on, are among the 34 properties that the city of San Diego may sell as part of the mayor's plan to raise $100 million over the next five years. Photo: Vladimir Kogan

Does Ann Smith feel guilt and remorse about illegal benefits?

Congratulations, Ann Smith!
Your clients once again got away with breaking the law--because the law didn't go after them soon enough! Judge Barton said yesterday that illegal pension benefits have to stay because the city later made agreements based on them. You just love it when your clients get clean away with something, don't you, Ann? I'll bet you sleep well at night.

Perhaps that's why San Diego is in such a mess. We have far too many people who sleep well after profiting from illegal actions.

Farm subsidies reached $25 billion last year, despite near-record farm revenue

Long ago, small farmers fed America, and needed help in bad years to stay afloat. Now huge conglomerates dominate farming, and their lobbying power allows them to take over $25 billion a year in tax dollars--most of which come from middle income workers.

1. People who don't farm, who have NEVER farmed, are paid $1,300,000,000 each year in farm subsidies because their land WAS FARMED AT SOMETIME IN THE PAST.

2. Both Democrats and Republicans are at fault.

In 2003, a California rancher named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for 20 cents a gallon cheaper than subsidized milk. It's hard to understand why huge dairies with over 3,000 cows need to be subsidized in the first place, but subsidies weren't enough for the dairy lobby. They also wanted to keep the price of milk high. So they got Democratic Senator Harry Reid to pass a new law ending Hettinga's enterprize--without holding a single congressional hearing.

In 2002, a group of Republicans created the Livestock Compensation Program without consulting Congress. Why? So they could give $50 million to South Dakota ranchers in an effort to help Republican Rep. John Thume defeat Democratic Rep. Tom Daschle.

3. BUT YOU DON'T NEED A DROUGHT TO GET DROUGHT RELIEF. In 2003, if debris from the space shuttle Columbia landed TEN TO TWENTY MILES FROM THEIR CATTLE, East Texas ranchers were allowed to collect up to $40,000 in disaster compensation.

(All information is from the Washington Post's "Harvesting Cash" series in July-December 2006)

Why did Premier, under investigaton by the U.S. Senate, get a Commerce Department award?

Premier, a Del Mar medical-supplies company, has won the Baldridge award from the Commerce Department.

The prize is considered "the Nobel Prize for quality business practices."*

The company is under investigaton by the U.S. Senate because of concerns that the industry is "rife with kickbacks and other corrupt practices that limit competition, restrict access to medical products and actually drive up prices."*

Apparently, the company drives smaller companies out of business.

Another problem is that there is a startling conflict of interest between the company and the award donors.

Richard Norling is a board member of Premier and a member and former chairman of the Foundation for the Baldridge Awards. He brings in a lot of money for the award which he obtains from "vendors that depend on contracts with his company to sell their products to Premiers' member hospitals."*

Premier is under investigaton by the U.S. Senate because of concerns that the industry is "rife with kickbacks and other corrupt practices that limit competition, restrict access to medical products and actually drive up prices."* Apparently, the company drives smaller companies out of business.

Marc Lampe, professor of business and ethics at University of San Diego, suggests an investigation into the integrity of the "firewall" separating the Foundation from the Award Program.


*San Diego Union Tribune, December 8, 2006

file/local corruption

Here's what Jeb Bush says about overpaid CEO's

"If the rewards become extraordinarily high with no link to performance, it undermines confidence in capitalism."
--Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida

We Settle for Talk instead of Action by our Leaders

Time's Person of the Year in 2002 says, "I still wonder whether we truly recognize and value the appropriate traits in our leaders."
Time Magazine
June 5, 2006