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...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Lobbyists and lawmakers party in D.C.
From The Times-Picayune
D.C. Mardi Gras puts a mask on ethics codes
Lawmakers, lobbyists celebrate Louisiana traditions together
January 24, 2008
By Bill Walsh
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1201155718191680.xml&coll=1
WASHINGTON -- New ethics rules were supposed to have "broken the link" between special interests and Congress, but the changes won't stop lobbyists and lawmakers from donning masks and celebrating together as they have for decades at the Washington Mardi Gras.
The parties, meals and receptions starting today are arguably the most intimate gatherings of businesspeople, politicians and lobbyists left in Washington, where a spate of influence-peddling scandals has put a damper on corporate-sponsored schmoozing.
But Washington Mardi Gras, which is in many ways a throwback to the days when politicians and lobbyists socialized regularly outside the glare of the public spotlight, appears largely immune to the new ethics standards.
"I don't think there will be much difference at all," said Ted Jones, a recently retired lobbyist who, as a longtime organizer of the three-day celebration, bears the title of senior lieutenant in the Mystick Krewe of Louisianians.
Jones says the Mardi Gras has survived periodic attempts to clamp down on congressional ethics because it is less business than pleasure. Each year, about 2,000 Louisianians trek to the nation's capital and turn the Washington Hilton into a bustling party headquarters. The bar at the hotel is so thick with Louisiana politicos, especially in an election year, that it has been dubbed the state's 65th parish.
"For most of these people, it's their one trip to Washington a year," said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, a one-time captain of the Mystick Krewe. Breaux retired from the Senate in 2005 to become a lobbyist and now carries the title of senior lieutenant emeritus.
Jones puts it this way: "There is no big deal about this. It's just like you'd invite people to your house for a party and you bring your own bottle."
For the first night anyway, the bottles -- and food and music -- are free. They are paid for by the corporations, labor unions and lobbying firms sponsoring the "Louisiana Alive!" party that kicks off the Mardi Gras.
Be there or be square
The event is one of the most sought-after tickets in any season in Washington. Dixieland and zydeco bands are flown up from Louisiana along with a seemingly endless supply of fresh shrimp and gumbo. The bars are open. Contortionists in spandex outfits entertain on pedestals throughout the ballroom, and members of Louisiana's congressional delegation mix freely with the other guests. One year, Breaux was carried into the party in a coffin held aloft by revelers...
D.C. Mardi Gras puts a mask on ethics codes
Lawmakers, lobbyists celebrate Louisiana traditions together
January 24, 2008
By Bill Walsh
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1201155718191680.xml&coll=1
WASHINGTON -- New ethics rules were supposed to have "broken the link" between special interests and Congress, but the changes won't stop lobbyists and lawmakers from donning masks and celebrating together as they have for decades at the Washington Mardi Gras.
The parties, meals and receptions starting today are arguably the most intimate gatherings of businesspeople, politicians and lobbyists left in Washington, where a spate of influence-peddling scandals has put a damper on corporate-sponsored schmoozing.
But Washington Mardi Gras, which is in many ways a throwback to the days when politicians and lobbyists socialized regularly outside the glare of the public spotlight, appears largely immune to the new ethics standards.
"I don't think there will be much difference at all," said Ted Jones, a recently retired lobbyist who, as a longtime organizer of the three-day celebration, bears the title of senior lieutenant in the Mystick Krewe of Louisianians.
Jones says the Mardi Gras has survived periodic attempts to clamp down on congressional ethics because it is less business than pleasure. Each year, about 2,000 Louisianians trek to the nation's capital and turn the Washington Hilton into a bustling party headquarters. The bar at the hotel is so thick with Louisiana politicos, especially in an election year, that it has been dubbed the state's 65th parish.
"For most of these people, it's their one trip to Washington a year," said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, a one-time captain of the Mystick Krewe. Breaux retired from the Senate in 2005 to become a lobbyist and now carries the title of senior lieutenant emeritus.
Jones puts it this way: "There is no big deal about this. It's just like you'd invite people to your house for a party and you bring your own bottle."
For the first night anyway, the bottles -- and food and music -- are free. They are paid for by the corporations, labor unions and lobbying firms sponsoring the "Louisiana Alive!" party that kicks off the Mardi Gras.
Be there or be square
The event is one of the most sought-after tickets in any season in Washington. Dixieland and zydeco bands are flown up from Louisiana along with a seemingly endless supply of fresh shrimp and gumbo. The bars are open. Contortionists in spandex outfits entertain on pedestals throughout the ballroom, and members of Louisiana's congressional delegation mix freely with the other guests. One year, Breaux was carried into the party in a coffin held aloft by revelers...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cox Communications really means it when it says it cares
Found at http://www.coxcares.com:
"Cox cares...Cox Communications is constantly striving to improve our customer experience. Your ideas and opinions are very important to us..."
"Cox cares...Cox Communications is constantly striving to improve our customer experience. Your ideas and opinions are very important to us..."
Is Cox Communications too cheap to follow government regulations?
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Cox Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .) File No. EB-04-SD-051
Facility ID #s 002295 & 004818 . . . . .)
Community Unit ID #s AZ0109 . . . . . . )
AZ0110, AZ0148, AZ0176, . . . . . . . . . .)
AZ0273 and AZ0878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) NOV No. V20043294001
Maricopa County, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: September
13, 2004
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Maricopa County, Arizona.
2. From February 10 through 13, 2004, an agent from the
Commission's San Diego Office inspected the Emergency Alert
System (``EAS'') equipment and logs at the following cable
system headend locations operated by Cox Communications,
Inc.:
Site Address
Bell 1550 W. Deer Valley Rd.,
Phoenix, AZ
East Mesa 4437 E. Holmes Ave., Mesa, AZ
Fowler 6610 Van Buren St., Phoenix,
AZ
McDowell 3008 E. McDowell Rd., Phoenix,
AZ
Peoria 9534 W. Peoria Ave., Peoria,
AZ
Scottsdale North 28213 N. 64th St., Scottsdale,
AZ
The agent observed the following violation:
47 C.F.R. § 11.52(d): ``Broadcast stations and
cable systems and wireless cable systems must
monitor two EAS sources. The monitoring
assignments of each broadcast station, cable system
and wireless cable system are specified in the State
EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. They are developed in
accordance with FCC monitoring priorities.'' Cox
Communications, Inc. had the capability to monitor
two EAS sources but failed to monitor the local LP-1
station. According to the local EAS plan for the
Phoenix, AZ area (Maricopa County, Arizona), the
designated LP-1 station is KTAR(AM), Phoenix,
Arizona.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of the
licensee. All replies and documentation sent in response to
this Notice should be marked with the File No. and NOV No.
specified above, and mailed to the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.,
1550 Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Cox Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .) File No. EB-04-SD-051
Facility ID #s 002295 & 004818 . . . . .)
Community Unit ID #s AZ0109 . . . . . . )
AZ0110, AZ0148, AZ0176, . . . . . . . . . .)
AZ0273 and AZ0878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) NOV No. V20043294001
Maricopa County, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: September
13, 2004
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Maricopa County, Arizona.
2. From February 10 through 13, 2004, an agent from the
Commission's San Diego Office inspected the Emergency Alert
System (``EAS'') equipment and logs at the following cable
system headend locations operated by Cox Communications,
Inc.:
Site Address
Bell 1550 W. Deer Valley Rd.,
Phoenix, AZ
East Mesa 4437 E. Holmes Ave., Mesa, AZ
Fowler 6610 Van Buren St., Phoenix,
AZ
McDowell 3008 E. McDowell Rd., Phoenix,
AZ
Peoria 9534 W. Peoria Ave., Peoria,
AZ
Scottsdale North 28213 N. 64th St., Scottsdale,
AZ
The agent observed the following violation:
47 C.F.R. § 11.52(d): ``Broadcast stations and
cable systems and wireless cable systems must
monitor two EAS sources. The monitoring
assignments of each broadcast station, cable system
and wireless cable system are specified in the State
EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. They are developed in
accordance with FCC monitoring priorities.'' Cox
Communications, Inc. had the capability to monitor
two EAS sources but failed to monitor the local LP-1
station. According to the local EAS plan for the
Phoenix, AZ area (Maricopa County, Arizona), the
designated LP-1 station is KTAR(AM), Phoenix,
Arizona.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of the
licensee. All replies and documentation sent in response to
this Notice should be marked with the File No. and NOV No.
specified above, and mailed to the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.,
1550 Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Cox Communications FCC violation--poaching on government wavelengths
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259163A1.html
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Cox Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-05-SD-
101
)
Physical System ID # 006623 )
)
Casa Grande, Arizona ) NOV No.
V20053294005
)
)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: June 2,
2005
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Casa Grande, Arizona.
2. On May 12, 2005, an agent from the Commission's San
Diego Office inspected the cable system operated by Cox
Communications, Inc. in Casa Grande, Arizona, and observed
the following violation:
a. 47 C.F.R. § 76.612(a): ``All cable television
systems which operate in
the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz ...
must operate at frequencies offset from certain
frequencies which may be used by aeronautical
radio services operated by Commission licensees or
by the United States Government.'' In this
instance, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 45 measured 349.2971 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 349.2875 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
9.6 kHz from the nearest permitted offset channel,
which exceeds the allowable tolerance by 4.6 kHz.
Also, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 51 measured 385.3008 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 385.3125 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
11.7 kHz from the nearest permitted offset
channel, which exceeds the allowable tolerance by
6.7 kHz.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of Cox
Communications, Inc. All replies and documentation sent in
response to this Notice should be marked with the File No.
and NOV No. specified above, and mailed to the following
address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.
of Casa Grande, Arizona at its address of record.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Cox Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-05-SD-
101
)
Physical System ID # 006623 )
)
Casa Grande, Arizona ) NOV No.
V20053294005
)
)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: June 2,
2005
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Casa Grande, Arizona.
2. On May 12, 2005, an agent from the Commission's San
Diego Office inspected the cable system operated by Cox
Communications, Inc. in Casa Grande, Arizona, and observed
the following violation:
a. 47 C.F.R. § 76.612(a): ``All cable television
systems which operate in
the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz ...
must operate at frequencies offset from certain
frequencies which may be used by aeronautical
radio services operated by Commission licensees or
by the United States Government.'' In this
instance, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 45 measured 349.2971 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 349.2875 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
9.6 kHz from the nearest permitted offset channel,
which exceeds the allowable tolerance by 4.6 kHz.
Also, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 51 measured 385.3008 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 385.3125 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
11.7 kHz from the nearest permitted offset
channel, which exceeds the allowable tolerance by
6.7 kHz.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of Cox
Communications, Inc. All replies and documentation sent in
response to this Notice should be marked with the File No.
and NOV No. specified above, and mailed to the following
address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.
of Casa Grande, Arizona at its address of record.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Who is Cox Communications, Inc.?
To read the information about Cox Communications provided by San Diego Source, the online version of the Daily Transcript, you really only need to know one thing:
"wnd" means "would not disclose."
Cox Communications Inc.
Contact Information Business Information
Executives
William K. Geppert, VP/General Manager
Lindsay Burroughs, VP, Cox Business Services
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105
Phone
(619) 262-1122 or (619) 269-2000
Fax
(619) 266-5313 or (619) 269-2496
E-mail
customerinquiries@cox.com
Parent Company
n/a
Year Established
1961
Headquarters
San Diego, CA
Number of Offices Companywide
n/a
Number of Local Offices
n/a
Number of Employees Local
2,300
Number of Employees Companywide
23,000
Number of Subscribers
534,000
Local Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Annual Operating Budget
n/a
Capital Budget
n/a
Number of Offices Nationwide
n/a
Number of Part-Time Employees
n/a
Number of San Diego Locations
8
Number of Full-Time Employees
n/a
Partial Client List
n/a
Other Products
Pay per view services, digital video recorder, high-speed definition
Authorized Dealer For
n/a
Number of Systems Installations Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2005
wnd
Gross Sales 2005, Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2005 Companywide
wnd
Gross Revenue, Companywide
wnd
Assets
wnd
Mission Statement
To be the premier telecommunications provider in San Diego County.
http://sourcebook.sddt.com/source/company.cfm?BusinessCategory_ID=64&Company_ID=6921
"wnd" means "would not disclose."
Cox Communications Inc.
Contact Information Business Information
Executives
William K. Geppert, VP/General Manager
Lindsay Burroughs, VP, Cox Business Services
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105
Phone
(619) 262-1122 or (619) 269-2000
Fax
(619) 266-5313 or (619) 269-2496
customerinquiries@cox.com
Parent Company
n/a
Year Established
1961
Headquarters
San Diego, CA
Number of Offices Companywide
n/a
Number of Local Offices
n/a
Number of Employees Local
2,300
Number of Employees Companywide
23,000
Number of Subscribers
534,000
Local Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Annual Operating Budget
n/a
Capital Budget
n/a
Number of Offices Nationwide
n/a
Number of Part-Time Employees
n/a
Number of San Diego Locations
8
Number of Full-Time Employees
n/a
Partial Client List
n/a
Other Products
Pay per view services, digital video recorder, high-speed definition
Authorized Dealer For
n/a
Number of Systems Installations Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2005
wnd
Gross Sales 2005, Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2005 Companywide
wnd
Gross Revenue, Companywide
wnd
Assets
wnd
Mission Statement
To be the premier telecommunications provider in San Diego County.
http://sourcebook.sddt.com/source/company.cfm?BusinessCategory_ID=64&Company_ID=6921
Thursday, January 17, 2008
What fools these Democrats be
By NICK GILLESPIE
Published: September 2, 2007
With the possible exception of the Republicans, is there a major political party more stupefyingly brain-dead than the Democrats? That’s the ultimate takeaway from “The Argument,” Matt Bai’s sharply written, exhaustively reported and thoroughly depressing account of “billionaires, bloggers, and the battle to remake Democratic politics” along unabashedly “progressive” (read: New Deal and Great Society) lines. Well-financed and influential groups ranging from the Democracy Alliance to the New Democrat Network to MoveOn.org may be taking over the Democratic Party, he says, but they are not doing the heavy thinking that will fundamentally transform politics — unlike the free-market, small-government groups formed in the wake of Barry Goldwater’s historic loss in the 1964 presidential race.
THE ARGUMENT
Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.
By Matt Bai.
316 pp. The Penguin Press. $25.95.
Bai has the grim job of covering national politics for The New York Times Magazine, which means his livelihood depends on following closely whether the Tennessee actor-turned-politician-turned-actor-again Fred Thompson will actually run for president (a decision reportedly put off until after Labor Day, allowing an anxious nation to savor the last days of summer) and taking seriously the White House fantasies of Senator Joseph Biden (at least in Biden’s presence). While sympathetic to the new progressives, Bai describes a movement long on anger and short on thought.
In detailing the machinations of superrich Democratic activists like George Soros, who blew through close to $30 million of his wealth in an unsuccessful attempt to unelect George W. Bush in 2004, and barricade-bashing cyberpunks like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the popular Daily Kos Web site, whose participant-readers attack all things Republican with the same fervor they showed when championing the already forgotten Ned Lamont in his unsuccessful attempt to unseat Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2006, Bai reluctantly and repeatedly owns up to a hard truth: “There’s not much reason to think that the Democratic Party has suddenly overcome its confusion about the passing of the industrial economy and the cold war, events that left the party, over the last few decades, groping for some new philosophical framework.”
To be sure, these are giddy times for the Dems. Since last year’s elections, they’re back in control of the Congress they’ve dominated most of the time since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. According to a July 27-30 poll conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the general public thinks Democrats will do a much better job than Republicans not just on global warming, health care and education but also on traditional Republican bailiwicks like controlling federal spending, dealing with taxes and protecting America’s interest in trade. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, continues to lead her Republican counterpart, Rudy Giuliani, in most polls, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in 2008 too.
But as John Kerry might tell you, never write off the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The recent farm bill passed by the House — and pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — maintains subsidies to already prospering farmers, angering not just conservative budget cutters but liberal environmentalists. House and Senate Democrats allowed a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadens the scope of warrantless wiretaps just after holding hearings denouncing the man who would issue them, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for routinely abusing his power. Although the misconceived and misprosecuted war in Iraq was the issue most responsible for their return to power, Congressional Democrats have yet to put forth a coherent or convincing program to end American military involvement there.
Little wonder, then, that the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 24 percent of American adults approve of the job the Democratic Congress is doing. That’s a decline of seven points from March. There are longer-lived trends that should worry the Democrats. In 1970, according to the Harris Poll, 49 percent of Americans considered themselves Democrats (31 percent considered themselves Republicans). In 2006, the last year for which full data are available, affiliation with the Democrats stood at 36 percent (the silver lining is that the Republicans pulled just 27 percent). If the Democrats are in fact the party of Great Society liberals, the problems run even deeper. The percentage of Americans who define their political philosophy as “liberal” has been consistently stuck around 18 percent since the 1970s, and the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to crack 50 percent of the popular vote in each of the past seven elections.
“The Argument” provides plenty of reasons to think that the Democrats, owing to an off-putting mix of elitism toward the little people and glibness toward actual policy ideas, are unlikely to go over the top anytime soon. Or, almost the same thing, to make the most of any majority they hold. The book describes Soros, after Bush’s victory in 2004, coming to the realization that (in Bai’s words) “it was the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided. ... Decadence ... had led to a society that seemed incapable of conjuring up any outrage at deceptive policies that made the rich richer and the world less safe.” Rob Reiner, the Hollywood heavyweight who has contributed significantly to progressive causes and who pushed a hugely expensive universal preschool ballot initiative in California that lost by a resounding 3-to-2 ratio, interrupts a discussion by announcing: “I’ve got to take a leak. Talk amongst yourselves.” Bai never stints on such telling and unattractive details, whether describing a poorly attended and heavily scripted MoveOn.org house party or a celebrity-soaked soiree in which the host, the billionaire Lynda Resnick, declared from the top of her Sunset Boulevard mansion’s spiral staircase, “We are so tired of being disenfranchised!”
Moulitsas, the Prince Hal of the left-liberal blogosphere, comes off as an intellectual lightweight, boasting to Bai that his next book will be called “The Libertarian Democrat” but admitting that he has never read Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and social theorist, who is arguably most responsible for the contemporary libertarian movement. Moulitsas’ co-author (of “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”), Jerome Armstrong, talks a grand game about revolutionary change, but signed on as a paid consultant to former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, an archetypal centrist Democrat whose vapid presidential campaign ended almost as quickly as it began. When MoveOn — the Web-based “colossus” whose e-mail appeals, Bai says, have always centered on the same message: “Republicans were evil, arrogant and corrupt” — devised its member-generated agenda, it came up with a low-calorie three-point plan: “health care for all”; “energy independence through clean, renewable sources”; and “democracy restored.”
Recalling a meeting of leading progressives — including Armstrong, Representative Adam Smith of Washington and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network — just after the 2006 midterm elections, Bai writes: “Seventy years ago ... visionary Democrats had distinguished their party with the force of their intellect. Now the inheritors of that party stood on the threshold of a new economic moment, when the nation seemed likely to rise or fall on the strength of its intellectual capital, and the only thing that seemed to interest them was the machinery of politics.” The argument at the heart of “The Argument” is less about vision and more about strategy.
That’s bad news, even or especially for those of us who don’t see large differences between Republicans and Democrats. Our political system works best — or is at least more interesting — when big ideas are being bandied about, both within parties and between them. The lack of depth among the Democrats may not hurt them in the 2008 elections — the Republicans, whose would-be presidential candidates have mostly publicly rejected evolution, are not exactly bursting with new ideas either. But it remains profoundly disappointing.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.
More Articles in Books »
Published: September 2, 2007
With the possible exception of the Republicans, is there a major political party more stupefyingly brain-dead than the Democrats? That’s the ultimate takeaway from “The Argument,” Matt Bai’s sharply written, exhaustively reported and thoroughly depressing account of “billionaires, bloggers, and the battle to remake Democratic politics” along unabashedly “progressive” (read: New Deal and Great Society) lines. Well-financed and influential groups ranging from the Democracy Alliance to the New Democrat Network to MoveOn.org may be taking over the Democratic Party, he says, but they are not doing the heavy thinking that will fundamentally transform politics — unlike the free-market, small-government groups formed in the wake of Barry Goldwater’s historic loss in the 1964 presidential race.
THE ARGUMENT
Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.
By Matt Bai.
316 pp. The Penguin Press. $25.95.
Bai has the grim job of covering national politics for The New York Times Magazine, which means his livelihood depends on following closely whether the Tennessee actor-turned-politician-turned-actor-again Fred Thompson will actually run for president (a decision reportedly put off until after Labor Day, allowing an anxious nation to savor the last days of summer) and taking seriously the White House fantasies of Senator Joseph Biden (at least in Biden’s presence). While sympathetic to the new progressives, Bai describes a movement long on anger and short on thought.
In detailing the machinations of superrich Democratic activists like George Soros, who blew through close to $30 million of his wealth in an unsuccessful attempt to unelect George W. Bush in 2004, and barricade-bashing cyberpunks like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the popular Daily Kos Web site, whose participant-readers attack all things Republican with the same fervor they showed when championing the already forgotten Ned Lamont in his unsuccessful attempt to unseat Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2006, Bai reluctantly and repeatedly owns up to a hard truth: “There’s not much reason to think that the Democratic Party has suddenly overcome its confusion about the passing of the industrial economy and the cold war, events that left the party, over the last few decades, groping for some new philosophical framework.”
To be sure, these are giddy times for the Dems. Since last year’s elections, they’re back in control of the Congress they’ve dominated most of the time since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. According to a July 27-30 poll conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the general public thinks Democrats will do a much better job than Republicans not just on global warming, health care and education but also on traditional Republican bailiwicks like controlling federal spending, dealing with taxes and protecting America’s interest in trade. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, continues to lead her Republican counterpart, Rudy Giuliani, in most polls, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in 2008 too.
But as John Kerry might tell you, never write off the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The recent farm bill passed by the House — and pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — maintains subsidies to already prospering farmers, angering not just conservative budget cutters but liberal environmentalists. House and Senate Democrats allowed a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadens the scope of warrantless wiretaps just after holding hearings denouncing the man who would issue them, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for routinely abusing his power. Although the misconceived and misprosecuted war in Iraq was the issue most responsible for their return to power, Congressional Democrats have yet to put forth a coherent or convincing program to end American military involvement there.
Little wonder, then, that the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 24 percent of American adults approve of the job the Democratic Congress is doing. That’s a decline of seven points from March. There are longer-lived trends that should worry the Democrats. In 1970, according to the Harris Poll, 49 percent of Americans considered themselves Democrats (31 percent considered themselves Republicans). In 2006, the last year for which full data are available, affiliation with the Democrats stood at 36 percent (the silver lining is that the Republicans pulled just 27 percent). If the Democrats are in fact the party of Great Society liberals, the problems run even deeper. The percentage of Americans who define their political philosophy as “liberal” has been consistently stuck around 18 percent since the 1970s, and the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to crack 50 percent of the popular vote in each of the past seven elections.
“The Argument” provides plenty of reasons to think that the Democrats, owing to an off-putting mix of elitism toward the little people and glibness toward actual policy ideas, are unlikely to go over the top anytime soon. Or, almost the same thing, to make the most of any majority they hold. The book describes Soros, after Bush’s victory in 2004, coming to the realization that (in Bai’s words) “it was the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided. ... Decadence ... had led to a society that seemed incapable of conjuring up any outrage at deceptive policies that made the rich richer and the world less safe.” Rob Reiner, the Hollywood heavyweight who has contributed significantly to progressive causes and who pushed a hugely expensive universal preschool ballot initiative in California that lost by a resounding 3-to-2 ratio, interrupts a discussion by announcing: “I’ve got to take a leak. Talk amongst yourselves.” Bai never stints on such telling and unattractive details, whether describing a poorly attended and heavily scripted MoveOn.org house party or a celebrity-soaked soiree in which the host, the billionaire Lynda Resnick, declared from the top of her Sunset Boulevard mansion’s spiral staircase, “We are so tired of being disenfranchised!”
Moulitsas, the Prince Hal of the left-liberal blogosphere, comes off as an intellectual lightweight, boasting to Bai that his next book will be called “The Libertarian Democrat” but admitting that he has never read Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and social theorist, who is arguably most responsible for the contemporary libertarian movement. Moulitsas’ co-author (of “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”), Jerome Armstrong, talks a grand game about revolutionary change, but signed on as a paid consultant to former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, an archetypal centrist Democrat whose vapid presidential campaign ended almost as quickly as it began. When MoveOn — the Web-based “colossus” whose e-mail appeals, Bai says, have always centered on the same message: “Republicans were evil, arrogant and corrupt” — devised its member-generated agenda, it came up with a low-calorie three-point plan: “health care for all”; “energy independence through clean, renewable sources”; and “democracy restored.”
Recalling a meeting of leading progressives — including Armstrong, Representative Adam Smith of Washington and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network — just after the 2006 midterm elections, Bai writes: “Seventy years ago ... visionary Democrats had distinguished their party with the force of their intellect. Now the inheritors of that party stood on the threshold of a new economic moment, when the nation seemed likely to rise or fall on the strength of its intellectual capital, and the only thing that seemed to interest them was the machinery of politics.” The argument at the heart of “The Argument” is less about vision and more about strategy.
That’s bad news, even or especially for those of us who don’t see large differences between Republicans and Democrats. Our political system works best — or is at least more interesting — when big ideas are being bandied about, both within parties and between them. The lack of depth among the Democrats may not hurt them in the 2008 elections — the Republicans, whose would-be presidential candidates have mostly publicly rejected evolution, are not exactly bursting with new ideas either. But it remains profoundly disappointing.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.
More Articles in Books »
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
It appears SDG&E is largely to blame for fires
Click here to see the original article.
Probe of Calif. Fires Lays Most Blame on Power Lines
Downing of Poles by Santa Ana Winds Renews Debate Over Costly Option of Burying Electrical Cables
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
December 24, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- When the firestorms of October were finally extinguished and hundreds of thousands of Southern Californians returned to their homes, officials set out to understand how 21 fires erupted in the span of just three days.
Searching high and low, they found the easiest explanations at ground level: A 10-year-old boy confessed to starting one fire while playing with matches. That blaze blackened 38,000 acres north of Los Angeles, though authorities opted not to press charges against the youth, who has been described as distraught.
Two other fires were attributed to arson, something officials said happens routinely when fires erupt elsewhere. "The arsonists jump in because they have cover; there's other fires already," said Bill Peters, spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In an odd twist, a convicted arsonist was discovered among the volunteers fighting fires in San Diego County. Paroled after setting seven blazes 10 years ago, the man was not implicated in the October fires.
The leading cause of ignition appeared to be power lines.
As many as eight fires were blamed on sparks from lines blown down by the high, hot Santa Ana winds that sweep across Southern California each autumn. The Witch fire, which burned 200,000 acres and killed two people, was ignited by a power line, as was the smaller Guejito blaze with which it merged.
The findings have renewed calls for improving the safety of the power lines, either by reinforcing poles and line fasteners or, in some cases, placing cables underground in rural areas that experience the worst winds.
"We're certainly all looking at undergrounding in fire-prone rural areas -- even though that hasn't been the norm -- given the number of fires that have broken out over the last several years," said Christy Heiser, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric. She noted that 60 percent of the utility's lines are already underground, twice the national average.
The problem is expense. Burying power lines can cost $1 million a mile. It also makes any repair a matter of digging.
"People don't understand the consequences of it," said James A. Kelly, vice president for engineering and technical services at Southern California Edison, which is less eager to bury the lines. "It's like using a 20-pound sledgehammer to kill an ant."
Edison is experimenting with less costly options, including poles made from composite materials designed to withstand winds that "are sufficient in some instances to snap wooden poles," Kelly said.
Indeed, the Santa Ana winds remain the primary reason for October's fires. The gusty, dry gales exceeded 100 mph, and blew steadily for so long that they drove fires over terrain that had been thoroughly burned four years earlier.
"As a general rule, the younger the stand, the less fuel there is," said Jon Keeley, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. "But if you overlay what burned in October 2007 against earlier fire histories, what you can see is a huge portion of what burned in 2003 got re-burned. If you include the 2002 fires, it's like 100,000 acres."
Keeley said that suggests that controlled burns are relatively ineffective on Southern California's scrubby landscape. In testimony to a Senate panel last month, he urged restricting new residential development in fire-prone areas, tightening building codes on the houses that are built, and exploring the burial of power lines in the corridors that Santa Ana winds sweep through.
"Power companies aren't eager to do it because it's expensive," he said. "But given the cost of these fires, I can't believe it's not cost-effective."
And after all that, Keeley said, the public must understand that fires in Southern California are like earthquakes: inevitable.
"The thing is, everything is going to re-burn: Southern California is a fire-based ecology," said Peters. "The intangible here is, as long as people want to live on that interface between nature and man, we have to deal with that. And so that's why -- well, this happens all the time. Because that's where we live!"
Probe of Calif. Fires Lays Most Blame on Power Lines
Downing of Poles by Santa Ana Winds Renews Debate Over Costly Option of Burying Electrical Cables
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
December 24, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- When the firestorms of October were finally extinguished and hundreds of thousands of Southern Californians returned to their homes, officials set out to understand how 21 fires erupted in the span of just three days.
Searching high and low, they found the easiest explanations at ground level: A 10-year-old boy confessed to starting one fire while playing with matches. That blaze blackened 38,000 acres north of Los Angeles, though authorities opted not to press charges against the youth, who has been described as distraught.
Two other fires were attributed to arson, something officials said happens routinely when fires erupt elsewhere. "The arsonists jump in because they have cover; there's other fires already," said Bill Peters, spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In an odd twist, a convicted arsonist was discovered among the volunteers fighting fires in San Diego County. Paroled after setting seven blazes 10 years ago, the man was not implicated in the October fires.
The leading cause of ignition appeared to be power lines.
As many as eight fires were blamed on sparks from lines blown down by the high, hot Santa Ana winds that sweep across Southern California each autumn. The Witch fire, which burned 200,000 acres and killed two people, was ignited by a power line, as was the smaller Guejito blaze with which it merged.
The findings have renewed calls for improving the safety of the power lines, either by reinforcing poles and line fasteners or, in some cases, placing cables underground in rural areas that experience the worst winds.
"We're certainly all looking at undergrounding in fire-prone rural areas -- even though that hasn't been the norm -- given the number of fires that have broken out over the last several years," said Christy Heiser, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric. She noted that 60 percent of the utility's lines are already underground, twice the national average.
The problem is expense. Burying power lines can cost $1 million a mile. It also makes any repair a matter of digging.
"People don't understand the consequences of it," said James A. Kelly, vice president for engineering and technical services at Southern California Edison, which is less eager to bury the lines. "It's like using a 20-pound sledgehammer to kill an ant."
Edison is experimenting with less costly options, including poles made from composite materials designed to withstand winds that "are sufficient in some instances to snap wooden poles," Kelly said.
Indeed, the Santa Ana winds remain the primary reason for October's fires. The gusty, dry gales exceeded 100 mph, and blew steadily for so long that they drove fires over terrain that had been thoroughly burned four years earlier.
"As a general rule, the younger the stand, the less fuel there is," said Jon Keeley, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. "But if you overlay what burned in October 2007 against earlier fire histories, what you can see is a huge portion of what burned in 2003 got re-burned. If you include the 2002 fires, it's like 100,000 acres."
Keeley said that suggests that controlled burns are relatively ineffective on Southern California's scrubby landscape. In testimony to a Senate panel last month, he urged restricting new residential development in fire-prone areas, tightening building codes on the houses that are built, and exploring the burial of power lines in the corridors that Santa Ana winds sweep through.
"Power companies aren't eager to do it because it's expensive," he said. "But given the cost of these fires, I can't believe it's not cost-effective."
And after all that, Keeley said, the public must understand that fires in Southern California are like earthquakes: inevitable.
"The thing is, everything is going to re-burn: Southern California is a fire-based ecology," said Peters. "The intangible here is, as long as people want to live on that interface between nature and man, we have to deal with that. And so that's why -- well, this happens all the time. Because that's where we live!"
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Whistleblowers out of luck in San Diego
The following article is from Voice of San Diego:
Despite Advice, Mayor Still Controls Whistleblower Hotline
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN Voice Staff Writer
Dec. 17, 2007 | Employees at the city of San Diego still do not have an outlet for anonymously reporting financial misconduct to the City Council's Audit Committee, even though a rule requiring the panel to field the concerns of whistleblowers was put in place seven months ago.
Instead, officials for Mayor Jerry Sanders are still in charge of the hotline. It keeps in place an arrangement in which City Hall's boss oversees the very forum where potentially embarrassing complaints about his administration are registered, while also having the power to fire the thousands of city employees prone to use the hotline.
Dailing Out
The Issue: The whistleblower hotline is overseen by the Mayor’s Office even though city law says a City Council committee should field the complaints.
What It Means: That puts the mayor in the position of supervising the very hotline that could field embarrassing complaints about his administration.
The Bigger Picture: Along with the auditor and appointments to the Audit Committee, it’s recommended the hotline is also made independent of the mayor.
It's a dynamic that concerns some officials who want to ensure the whistleblower process is an effective fix for a city that has suffered the scrutiny federal investigators and the loss of the its credit rating because of past breakdowns in financial controls.
"Any employees that might want to blow the whistle on something and it's a particularly sensitive issue to the mayor's administration, that might cause them to pause," said Jeff Kawar, a fiscal and policy analyst at the council's Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.
The hotline is among the several remedies recommended by outside consultants at Kroll Inc. and Vinson & Elkins. Together, the city paid more than $25 million to for the firms' expert opinions.
The two firms were hired after the discovery of errors and omission in the city's financial statements, in which the magnitude of the city's looming multibillion-dollar pension and retiree health care liabilities were downplayed.
Related Links
Both Mayor and Council Seek Majority Power for Committee (Aug. 9, 2007)
Hired to Reform, Former Auditor Left Unhappy with Mayor's Control (Feb. 26, 2007)
The inaccurate financial statements attracted the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has since sanctioned the city for securities fraud and fined its former auditor. Audit firms the city hired subsequent to the 2002 and 2003 disclosure problems have withheld their blessings of the city's financial statements, which has in turn barred the city from Wall Street.
Vinson & Elkins and Kroll concluded that weak internal controls -- the checks and balances of ensuring financial statements accurately reflect the city's financial health -- contributed to the city's reporting errors in 2002 and 2003.
Objections to the city's disclosures were first aired by pension trustee Diann Shipione, who didn't have the luxury of a confidential hotline. Instead, when Shipione sounded the alarms on the reporting errors and the controversial deal forged between the city and its retirement board, she was derided as crazy and vindictive. Pension officials tried to embarrass her by taking out an advertisement in a local newspaper that compared her to Chicken Little and sought to have police arrest her at a meeting.
Kroll and Vinson & Elkins recommended setting up an employee hotline, where employees could report concerns of misconduct anonymously and confidentially. Both firms saw it as a way to bring to light the city's financial reporting problems before they reach the desks of potential bond investors.
Each consultant advised the city to have a panel independent of the Mayor's Office handle calls. In May, the council followed the path laid out by Kroll, who recommended that the Audit Committee review the complaints that were cataloged on the hotline.
However, establishing the hotline has become one of several growing pains for the new committee, which was created in January. Many of Kroll's recommendations for the committee depend on the decisions of voters, who will need to change the city's bylaws in order to remove many auditing powers from the mayor's supervision as the firm recommended.
The Audit Committee expects to hear a presentation next month from outside consultants at Jefferson Wells about the best way to handle the hotline, said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, the panel's chairman. Faulconer said he wants to know how other cities arrange their hotlines so that the city can follow the best practices of government.
One city where the mayor is not involved in overseeing the hotline is Los Angeles. Employee complaints are routed either through the controller, who is elected, or the Ethics Commission, which is appointed by various city officials.
Lee Ann Pelham, the executive director of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, said employees would be more reluctant to complain about misconduct at work if they knew their calls were being handled by someone who worked for their boss.
"The hallmark of a workable ethics system is the ability to refer something to an office independently and confidentially," Pelham said.
Jo Anne SawyerKnoll, who heads Sanders' Office of Ethics & Integrity, said concerns that the mayor is too close to the hotline are unfounded. Sanders and his staff don't meddle in the complaints and because safeguards are in place, such as how the calls are fielded by a company outside the city.
"In theory, there is nothing wrong with the whistleblower line and program to be under the mayor as long as you have certain things in place that allow it to be confidential and anonymous," SawyerKnoll said.
SawyerKnoll said that an overwhelming number of complaints don't deal with misconduct. Her office doesn't investigate the alleged malfeasance. Rather, it refers complaints to the city auditor, who also reports to the mayor. She said she welcomes the council committee's involvement when it gets a process for reviewing complaints in place.
Until the Audit Committee takes over, the hotline rests with Sanders, who has gained more and more control of the complaint forum -- both by his designs and others' -- since he took office.
Former City Auditor John Torell created the hotline in 2005 before the city switched to the voter-approved strong-mayor form of government, when his office was removed from the city manager's administration and was instead controlled by the mayor and eight City Council members.
But once Sanders was put in charge of the entire city workforce, including the city auditor, in 2006, the hotline became the purview of the mayor. Torell bristled at the idea of reporting to Sanders, saying he didn't have enough independence from the administration he was tasked with inspecting. The hotline became one of the many new internal controls that would be compromised if it remained in the custody of mayoral officials, he said.
Several months into the strong-mayor structure, Sanders plucked the hotline from Torell and handed it to the Office of Ethics & Integrity. Torell then became one of four officials to serve on a committee that heard the complaints that were left on the hotline before he departed City Hall in a huff because of his diminished independence nearly one year ago.
Please contact Evan McLaughlin directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/18/government/614hotline121707.txt
Despite Advice, Mayor Still Controls Whistleblower Hotline
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN Voice Staff Writer
Dec. 17, 2007 | Employees at the city of San Diego still do not have an outlet for anonymously reporting financial misconduct to the City Council's Audit Committee, even though a rule requiring the panel to field the concerns of whistleblowers was put in place seven months ago.
Instead, officials for Mayor Jerry Sanders are still in charge of the hotline. It keeps in place an arrangement in which City Hall's boss oversees the very forum where potentially embarrassing complaints about his administration are registered, while also having the power to fire the thousands of city employees prone to use the hotline.
Dailing Out
The Issue: The whistleblower hotline is overseen by the Mayor’s Office even though city law says a City Council committee should field the complaints.
What It Means: That puts the mayor in the position of supervising the very hotline that could field embarrassing complaints about his administration.
The Bigger Picture: Along with the auditor and appointments to the Audit Committee, it’s recommended the hotline is also made independent of the mayor.
It's a dynamic that concerns some officials who want to ensure the whistleblower process is an effective fix for a city that has suffered the scrutiny federal investigators and the loss of the its credit rating because of past breakdowns in financial controls.
"Any employees that might want to blow the whistle on something and it's a particularly sensitive issue to the mayor's administration, that might cause them to pause," said Jeff Kawar, a fiscal and policy analyst at the council's Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.
The hotline is among the several remedies recommended by outside consultants at Kroll Inc. and Vinson & Elkins. Together, the city paid more than $25 million to for the firms' expert opinions.
The two firms were hired after the discovery of errors and omission in the city's financial statements, in which the magnitude of the city's looming multibillion-dollar pension and retiree health care liabilities were downplayed.
Related Links
Both Mayor and Council Seek Majority Power for Committee (Aug. 9, 2007)
Hired to Reform, Former Auditor Left Unhappy with Mayor's Control (Feb. 26, 2007)
The inaccurate financial statements attracted the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has since sanctioned the city for securities fraud and fined its former auditor. Audit firms the city hired subsequent to the 2002 and 2003 disclosure problems have withheld their blessings of the city's financial statements, which has in turn barred the city from Wall Street.
Vinson & Elkins and Kroll concluded that weak internal controls -- the checks and balances of ensuring financial statements accurately reflect the city's financial health -- contributed to the city's reporting errors in 2002 and 2003.
Objections to the city's disclosures were first aired by pension trustee Diann Shipione, who didn't have the luxury of a confidential hotline. Instead, when Shipione sounded the alarms on the reporting errors and the controversial deal forged between the city and its retirement board, she was derided as crazy and vindictive. Pension officials tried to embarrass her by taking out an advertisement in a local newspaper that compared her to Chicken Little and sought to have police arrest her at a meeting.
Kroll and Vinson & Elkins recommended setting up an employee hotline, where employees could report concerns of misconduct anonymously and confidentially. Both firms saw it as a way to bring to light the city's financial reporting problems before they reach the desks of potential bond investors.
Each consultant advised the city to have a panel independent of the Mayor's Office handle calls. In May, the council followed the path laid out by Kroll, who recommended that the Audit Committee review the complaints that were cataloged on the hotline.
However, establishing the hotline has become one of several growing pains for the new committee, which was created in January. Many of Kroll's recommendations for the committee depend on the decisions of voters, who will need to change the city's bylaws in order to remove many auditing powers from the mayor's supervision as the firm recommended.
The Audit Committee expects to hear a presentation next month from outside consultants at Jefferson Wells about the best way to handle the hotline, said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, the panel's chairman. Faulconer said he wants to know how other cities arrange their hotlines so that the city can follow the best practices of government.
One city where the mayor is not involved in overseeing the hotline is Los Angeles. Employee complaints are routed either through the controller, who is elected, or the Ethics Commission, which is appointed by various city officials.
Lee Ann Pelham, the executive director of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, said employees would be more reluctant to complain about misconduct at work if they knew their calls were being handled by someone who worked for their boss.
"The hallmark of a workable ethics system is the ability to refer something to an office independently and confidentially," Pelham said.
Jo Anne SawyerKnoll, who heads Sanders' Office of Ethics & Integrity, said concerns that the mayor is too close to the hotline are unfounded. Sanders and his staff don't meddle in the complaints and because safeguards are in place, such as how the calls are fielded by a company outside the city.
"In theory, there is nothing wrong with the whistleblower line and program to be under the mayor as long as you have certain things in place that allow it to be confidential and anonymous," SawyerKnoll said.
SawyerKnoll said that an overwhelming number of complaints don't deal with misconduct. Her office doesn't investigate the alleged malfeasance. Rather, it refers complaints to the city auditor, who also reports to the mayor. She said she welcomes the council committee's involvement when it gets a process for reviewing complaints in place.
Until the Audit Committee takes over, the hotline rests with Sanders, who has gained more and more control of the complaint forum -- both by his designs and others' -- since he took office.
Former City Auditor John Torell created the hotline in 2005 before the city switched to the voter-approved strong-mayor form of government, when his office was removed from the city manager's administration and was instead controlled by the mayor and eight City Council members.
But once Sanders was put in charge of the entire city workforce, including the city auditor, in 2006, the hotline became the purview of the mayor. Torell bristled at the idea of reporting to Sanders, saying he didn't have enough independence from the administration he was tasked with inspecting. The hotline became one of the many new internal controls that would be compromised if it remained in the custody of mayoral officials, he said.
Several months into the strong-mayor structure, Sanders plucked the hotline from Torell and handed it to the Office of Ethics & Integrity. Torell then became one of four officials to serve on a committee that heard the complaints that were left on the hotline before he departed City Hall in a huff because of his diminished independence nearly one year ago.
Please contact Evan McLaughlin directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/18/government/614hotline121707.txt
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The SEC says the pension deal included fraud
City's Former Auditor Charged With Fraud
December 11, 2007
SAN DIEGO -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged San Diego's former auditor with fraud for making false and misleading statements on city bond offerings.
The agency said Thomas Saiz and his former firm -- Calderon, James & Osborn -- signed off on incorrect statements about the health of the city's pension fund. The statements came in five city bond offerings in 2002 and 2003. Those bond sales raised $260 million.
Saiz agreed to pay a $15,000 fine as part of a settlement in the case filed Monday. Neither he nor the firm admitted wrongdoing.
The city's failure to disclose its pension woes became known in 2004, leading to the mayor's resignation and severely hampering San Diego's ability to borrow money.
Last year, the SEC charged the city of San Diego with securities fraud in connection with the bond sales in 2002 and 2003. It ordered the city to hire an independent financial consultant for three years but stopped short of levying fines for failing to disclose bad news about the pension fund.
The city employee's pension put San Diego $1.4 billion in debt, according to officials.
The Commission's investigation is ongoing, according to its Web site, "as to other individuals and entities that may have violated federal securities laws."
NBCSandiego.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
December 11, 2007
SAN DIEGO -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged San Diego's former auditor with fraud for making false and misleading statements on city bond offerings.
The agency said Thomas Saiz and his former firm -- Calderon, James & Osborn -- signed off on incorrect statements about the health of the city's pension fund. The statements came in five city bond offerings in 2002 and 2003. Those bond sales raised $260 million.
Saiz agreed to pay a $15,000 fine as part of a settlement in the case filed Monday. Neither he nor the firm admitted wrongdoing.
The city's failure to disclose its pension woes became known in 2004, leading to the mayor's resignation and severely hampering San Diego's ability to borrow money.
Last year, the SEC charged the city of San Diego with securities fraud in connection with the bond sales in 2002 and 2003. It ordered the city to hire an independent financial consultant for three years but stopped short of levying fines for failing to disclose bad news about the pension fund.
The city employee's pension put San Diego $1.4 billion in debt, according to officials.
The Commission's investigation is ongoing, according to its Web site, "as to other individuals and entities that may have violated federal securities laws."
NBCSandiego.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
What is the real purpose of the Lincoln Club? It doesn't seem to be education.
The Mayor’s Backroom Buddies: Who is Cox Really Looking Out For?
By Jen Badgley
Anyone who’s been following the bayfront development knows that Mayor Cox has been on Gaylord’s side since day one. Even when Gaylord got caught lying to the Port Commission , she was quick to jump to the company’s defense. Why has the Mayor been such a devoted cheerleader for a disreputable, out-of-state developer whose shaky finances earned it an “F” grade from one financial rating service?
Mayor Cox claims that she supports Gaylord because its plan is the best for Chula Vista, but if you take a look at the facts—especially the money trail—it’s obvious whom she’s really looking out for.
Most Chula Vistans probably aren’t familiar with the Lincoln Club, an elite group of corporate executives and real estate moguls who fund campaigns for business-friendly politicians, but this group pumped almost $80,000 into Cox’s mayoral bid. The director of the Lincoln Club, Gordon Carrier, is also a principle at the architectural firm Carrier Johnson, which was retained by the City to work on the bayfront redevelopment, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Another Lincoln Club contributor is Phelps Development, which formed the Gaylord Phelps Development LLC partnership last year for the “sole purpose” of winning a contract to oversee the bayfront development, according to Gaylord spokesman Brain Abrahamson. The port district was about to hire Phelps to oversee the budget, development and environmental guidelines on the bayfront project until the Voice of San Diego exposed this classic “wolf guarding the henhouse” set-up.
This embarrassing stunt hasn’t stopped Cox and her real estate cronies from stacking the deck in Gaylord’s favor. How do you think Gaylord’s local representative got a seat on Chula Vista’s Real Estate Advisory Committee? And as long as we’re asking questions, here are a few more questions that the Mayor won’t answer:
After years of public meetings, why is she ignoring the Citizens' Advisory Committee and giving free reign to Gaylord to build a development considered an eyesore and environmental disaster by many Chula Vistans?
Considering Chula Vista’s burgeoning debt, why is she giving away $300 million to Gaylord, a company that is already carrying a debt load of more than half a billion dollars? And what about the hidden infrastructure expenses that will cost Chula Vista even more?
Besides Gaylord’s convention center, what else do the Mayor and her Lincoln Club buddies have planned for the bayfront area? Why won’t she talk about the big picture for the future of Chula Vista?
Mayor Cox is supposed to represent the interests of all Chula Vistans, not just the wealthy developers who bankrolled her political career. But it’s clear whom she’s working for in City Hall. The Lincoln Club got its money’s worth when they helped elect Cheryl Cox.
Posted by LJF Team on September 26, 2007
http://www.localjobsfirst.org/blog/the_mayors_backroom_buddies_wh.html
By Jen Badgley
Anyone who’s been following the bayfront development knows that Mayor Cox has been on Gaylord’s side since day one. Even when Gaylord got caught lying to the Port Commission , she was quick to jump to the company’s defense. Why has the Mayor been such a devoted cheerleader for a disreputable, out-of-state developer whose shaky finances earned it an “F” grade from one financial rating service?
Mayor Cox claims that she supports Gaylord because its plan is the best for Chula Vista, but if you take a look at the facts—especially the money trail—it’s obvious whom she’s really looking out for.
Most Chula Vistans probably aren’t familiar with the Lincoln Club, an elite group of corporate executives and real estate moguls who fund campaigns for business-friendly politicians, but this group pumped almost $80,000 into Cox’s mayoral bid. The director of the Lincoln Club, Gordon Carrier, is also a principle at the architectural firm Carrier Johnson, which was retained by the City to work on the bayfront redevelopment, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Another Lincoln Club contributor is Phelps Development, which formed the Gaylord Phelps Development LLC partnership last year for the “sole purpose” of winning a contract to oversee the bayfront development, according to Gaylord spokesman Brain Abrahamson. The port district was about to hire Phelps to oversee the budget, development and environmental guidelines on the bayfront project until the Voice of San Diego exposed this classic “wolf guarding the henhouse” set-up.
This embarrassing stunt hasn’t stopped Cox and her real estate cronies from stacking the deck in Gaylord’s favor. How do you think Gaylord’s local representative got a seat on Chula Vista’s Real Estate Advisory Committee? And as long as we’re asking questions, here are a few more questions that the Mayor won’t answer:
After years of public meetings, why is she ignoring the Citizens' Advisory Committee and giving free reign to Gaylord to build a development considered an eyesore and environmental disaster by many Chula Vistans?
Considering Chula Vista’s burgeoning debt, why is she giving away $300 million to Gaylord, a company that is already carrying a debt load of more than half a billion dollars? And what about the hidden infrastructure expenses that will cost Chula Vista even more?
Besides Gaylord’s convention center, what else do the Mayor and her Lincoln Club buddies have planned for the bayfront area? Why won’t she talk about the big picture for the future of Chula Vista?
Mayor Cox is supposed to represent the interests of all Chula Vistans, not just the wealthy developers who bankrolled her political career. But it’s clear whom she’s working for in City Hall. The Lincoln Club got its money’s worth when they helped elect Cheryl Cox.
Posted by LJF Team on September 26, 2007
http://www.localjobsfirst.org/blog/the_mayors_backroom_buddies_wh.html
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Was Vencent Donlan pushed into crime?
UPDATE (link): Email from Vencent Donlan?
Links:
Robin Donlan deposition
Robin Donlan's $7.7 million fraud
Did someone push Vence Donlan into committing stock options fraud?
How did so many people who were close to Robin Donlan become involved in criminal activities?
These individuals include Donlan's brother, Michael Carlson; her PTA friend, Kimberlee Simmons; her fellow teachers at Castle Park Elementary School; her union, California Teachers Association; her school district, Chula Vista Elementary School District; her brother's boss, Commander Sam Gross of Santa Barbara Sheriff's department; her lawyers; and finally, and most distressingly,
her husband, a former navy pilot and school teacher who is now serving an almost-4-year federal prison sentence.
Robin's husband Vence Donlan was never in trouble before he married Robin.
What caused him to begin to commit stock option theft a few months after he married Robin?
Could it have been pressure from his wife?
That was certainly the reason that CTA, CVESD, teachers at Robin's school, and law enforcement and lawyers became involved in criminal activities. Robin Donlan put them in a position where they had to violate the law or push back against pressure. Sadly, they all decided to break the law.
I suspect that Robin was fearful in March 2002, when she learned that her school district and her fellow teachers had been sued, that her involvement in the wrongdoing would eventually be exposed.
Robin Doig Colls married Vence Donlan in early 2002, perhaps in part because she feared that her role in the wrongdoing would be exposed, and she wanted the support of a husband. Possibly she expressed fear to her husband that she would have to pay a lot of money in a lawsuit, and he felt the need to provide her with a lot of money.
One thing is for certain: Robin committed crimes, encouraged crimes, and covered up crimes. And a lot of people suffered the consequences.
It's time for Robin to come forward and tell the truth, and try to repair some of the damage she's done. The same is true of Chula Vista Elementary School District, California Teachers Association, and the San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority.
How about a return to the rule of law, Robin and friends?
Links:
Robin Donlan deposition
Robin Donlan's $7.7 million fraud
Did someone push Vence Donlan into committing stock options fraud?
How did so many people who were close to Robin Donlan become involved in criminal activities?
These individuals include Donlan's brother, Michael Carlson; her PTA friend, Kimberlee Simmons; her fellow teachers at Castle Park Elementary School; her union, California Teachers Association; her school district, Chula Vista Elementary School District; her brother's boss, Commander Sam Gross of Santa Barbara Sheriff's department; her lawyers; and finally, and most distressingly,
her husband, a former navy pilot and school teacher who is now serving an almost-4-year federal prison sentence.
Robin's husband Vence Donlan was never in trouble before he married Robin.
What caused him to begin to commit stock option theft a few months after he married Robin?
Could it have been pressure from his wife?
That was certainly the reason that CTA, CVESD, teachers at Robin's school, and law enforcement and lawyers became involved in criminal activities. Robin Donlan put them in a position where they had to violate the law or push back against pressure. Sadly, they all decided to break the law.
I suspect that Robin was fearful in March 2002, when she learned that her school district and her fellow teachers had been sued, that her involvement in the wrongdoing would eventually be exposed.
Robin Doig Colls married Vence Donlan in early 2002, perhaps in part because she feared that her role in the wrongdoing would be exposed, and she wanted the support of a husband. Possibly she expressed fear to her husband that she would have to pay a lot of money in a lawsuit, and he felt the need to provide her with a lot of money.
One thing is for certain: Robin committed crimes, encouraged crimes, and covered up crimes. And a lot of people suffered the consequences.
It's time for Robin to come forward and tell the truth, and try to repair some of the damage she's done. The same is true of Chula Vista Elementary School District, California Teachers Association, and the San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority.
How about a return to the rule of law, Robin and friends?
Saturday, December 01, 2007
It's so sweet of Kaiser Permanente to give charity to Keenan and Associates
Keenan & Associates Presents Fourth Annual Summit
Torrance, Calif.
Keenan & Associates, the largest privately held brokerage and consulting firm in California, presented their fourth annual Keenan Summit, featuring notable California thought leaders addressing topics critical to employers such as health care reform legislation and public employer liabilities for retiree health care costs...
The Keenan Summit was made possible by the generous contributions of these sponsors: Blue Shield of California, Health Net, Valley Oak Systems, MuniFinancial, United Healthcare PacificCare, Blue Cross of California, Express Scripts, Bay Actuarial Consultants, Aetna, Unum, Delta Dental,
Kaiser Permanente,
Wachovia Securities, Vision Service Plan, Maximus, and Johnson Rooney Welch.
About Keenan & Associates
Keenan & Associates, headquartered in Torrance, CA, was founded in 1972. Keenan has grown to the 17th largest insurance brokerage and consulting firm in the United States. With a network of offices located throughout California and a staff of more than 650 insurance specialists, Keenan is a full service Broker and consultant, dedicated to providing superior insurance products and services for public agencies and health care organizations. The company?s exceptional growth is directly related to its concentration on meeting the risk management, employee benefits, workers' compensation and property & liability consulting and brokerage objectives of public entities, health care systems and high-tech firms.
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/en/14185733/Keenan-&-Associates-Presents-Fourth-Annual-Summit
Torrance, Calif.
Keenan & Associates, the largest privately held brokerage and consulting firm in California, presented their fourth annual Keenan Summit, featuring notable California thought leaders addressing topics critical to employers such as health care reform legislation and public employer liabilities for retiree health care costs...
The Keenan Summit was made possible by the generous contributions of these sponsors: Blue Shield of California, Health Net, Valley Oak Systems, MuniFinancial, United Healthcare PacificCare, Blue Cross of California, Express Scripts, Bay Actuarial Consultants, Aetna, Unum, Delta Dental,
Kaiser Permanente,
Wachovia Securities, Vision Service Plan, Maximus, and Johnson Rooney Welch.
About Keenan & Associates
Keenan & Associates, headquartered in Torrance, CA, was founded in 1972. Keenan has grown to the 17th largest insurance brokerage and consulting firm in the United States. With a network of offices located throughout California and a staff of more than 650 insurance specialists, Keenan is a full service Broker and consultant, dedicated to providing superior insurance products and services for public agencies and health care organizations. The company?s exceptional growth is directly related to its concentration on meeting the risk management, employee benefits, workers' compensation and property & liability consulting and brokerage objectives of public entities, health care systems and high-tech firms.
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/en/14185733/Keenan-&-Associates-Presents-Fourth-Annual-Summit
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Encinitas councilwoman abstains from closed session in protest
Good for Teresa Barth! Secrecy and wrongdoing go hand in hand.
San Diego Union Tribune published this story by Angela Lau on October 17, 2007:
Frustrated that Encinitas City Council's closed sessions are not transparent enough, Councilwoman Teresa Barth abstained from Wednesday night's closed session in protest.
Closed sessions are scheduled to discuss sensitive items, such as litigation strategy. Wednesday night's meeting discussed litigation against F Street bookstore and labor negotiations.
Barth said Wednesday night she will not attend any more closed-session meetings until the city switches its 24-hour notification policy for closed-session agendas to 72-hour notification. She said she wants citizens to have time to prepare to testify before the council begins discussions.
She said her action was prompted by repeated pleas from the public to open closed sessions. She sought outside legal opinion and concluded that the city should give the public 72 hours' notice.
She said she does not consider closed sessions to be special meetings, but regular council meetings. City Attorney Glenn Sabine said in a previous council meeting that closed sessions are special meetings.
Under the Brown Act, special meetings only require 24 hours' notice, whereas regular council meetings require 72 hours' notice.
“The city is meeting the minimum requirements (of the law), but I don't think we are doing this in full disclosure and transparency,” she said, adding that she wants an opinion from the state's attorney general.
Barth's action was consistent with her campaign promise when she ran for office last year. She had said she would try to make city government more transparent.
Shortly after she was installed, Barth said she got the city to notify the public that they can speak on closed-session agenda items before the council commences discussions.
But that was not enough, she said.
Barth's ally, Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan, said she attended Wednesday night's closed session, but she wants to do more research to make sure the city is complying with the law.
Encinitas resident Russell Marr, who has been pressuring the council to give more notice on closed-session agenda items and disclose closed-session votes, said the council is violating the Brown Act.
“I told you 10 times about 72-hour notice. It's time you wake up,” he said.
Angela Lau: (760) 476-8240; angela.lau@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20071017-1951-bn17barth.html
San Diego Union Tribune published this story by Angela Lau on October 17, 2007:
Frustrated that Encinitas City Council's closed sessions are not transparent enough, Councilwoman Teresa Barth abstained from Wednesday night's closed session in protest.
Closed sessions are scheduled to discuss sensitive items, such as litigation strategy. Wednesday night's meeting discussed litigation against F Street bookstore and labor negotiations.
Barth said Wednesday night she will not attend any more closed-session meetings until the city switches its 24-hour notification policy for closed-session agendas to 72-hour notification. She said she wants citizens to have time to prepare to testify before the council begins discussions.
She said her action was prompted by repeated pleas from the public to open closed sessions. She sought outside legal opinion and concluded that the city should give the public 72 hours' notice.
She said she does not consider closed sessions to be special meetings, but regular council meetings. City Attorney Glenn Sabine said in a previous council meeting that closed sessions are special meetings.
Under the Brown Act, special meetings only require 24 hours' notice, whereas regular council meetings require 72 hours' notice.
“The city is meeting the minimum requirements (of the law), but I don't think we are doing this in full disclosure and transparency,” she said, adding that she wants an opinion from the state's attorney general.
Barth's action was consistent with her campaign promise when she ran for office last year. She had said she would try to make city government more transparent.
Shortly after she was installed, Barth said she got the city to notify the public that they can speak on closed-session agenda items before the council commences discussions.
But that was not enough, she said.
Barth's ally, Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan, said she attended Wednesday night's closed session, but she wants to do more research to make sure the city is complying with the law.
Encinitas resident Russell Marr, who has been pressuring the council to give more notice on closed-session agenda items and disclose closed-session votes, said the council is violating the Brown Act.
“I told you 10 times about 72-hour notice. It's time you wake up,” he said.
Angela Lau: (760) 476-8240; angela.lau@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20071017-1951-bn17barth.html
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Was Davis Recalled for Cheney's Wrongdoing?
UCAN
Utility Consumers' Action Network
Consumer Advocates
http://ucan.org/blog/energy/electricity/energy_deregulation_crisis/vice_president_cheney_suppressed_evidence_of_price_manipulation_during_ca_ene
Vice President Cheney suppressed evidence of price manipulation during CA energy crisis
Posted July 20th, 2007
A recent story by Jason Leopold on Truthout.org reports that Vice President Dick Cheney was aware of price manipulation and artificial powerplant shutdowns during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, but kept the information from the public. According to the story, just before Cheney's National Energy Policy was to be announced, the Vice President ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to seal documents related to settlements with two energy companies that had been investigated for wrongdoing. Leopold writes:
So in May 2001, just days before Cheney unveiled his long-awaited National Energy Policy, FERC entered into confidential settlements with Williams in which the company forfeited $8 million it was owed by California's grid operator for power Williams sold into the marketplace at inflated prices. Williams did not admit any guilt for the power plant shutdown and, on orders from Cheney, FERC agreed to keep details of the settlement sealed. FERC later entered into a similar settlement with Reliant. The company agreed to forfeit $13.8 million it was owed by California's grid operator, did not admit to any wrongdoing, and FERC kept the details of the settlement confidential.
Williams and Reliant never admited guilt. But do you remember the audio tapes with Enron employees laughing about all the money they had stolen from poor "Grandma Millie" in California? That's who these guys are. They don't have to admit their guilt because there are tapes and transcripts that have recorded it for us. One Reliant employee is quoted in the report as having said, "we decided as a group that we were going to make [the money we lost] back up, so we turned like about almost every power plant off. It worked." A Williams employee is quoted as having told a powerplant operator that it wouldn't hurt the companies' feelings, "if the power plant that was down for repairs was kept offline for an extended period of time so the company could continue to be paid the 'premium' for its emergency energy supplies from the ISO."
Dick Cheney's decision to keep such blatant wrong-doing from the public is part noble, and part sickening. Cheney was protecting a friend. After all, the man who had hand-picked Dick to succed him as the top man at Halliburton sat on Williams' board of directors. And that man, Thomas Cruikshank, had told Cheney that FERC, "was in possession of incriminating audio tapes in which a Williams official and an AES power plant operator discussed keeping a Southern California power plant offline so Williams could continue to receive the $750 per megawatt hour premium for emergency power..."...
Utility Consumers' Action Network
Consumer Advocates
http://ucan.org/blog/energy/electricity/energy_deregulation_crisis/vice_president_cheney_suppressed_evidence_of_price_manipulation_during_ca_ene
Vice President Cheney suppressed evidence of price manipulation during CA energy crisis
Posted July 20th, 2007
A recent story by Jason Leopold on Truthout.org reports that Vice President Dick Cheney was aware of price manipulation and artificial powerplant shutdowns during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, but kept the information from the public. According to the story, just before Cheney's National Energy Policy was to be announced, the Vice President ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to seal documents related to settlements with two energy companies that had been investigated for wrongdoing. Leopold writes:
So in May 2001, just days before Cheney unveiled his long-awaited National Energy Policy, FERC entered into confidential settlements with Williams in which the company forfeited $8 million it was owed by California's grid operator for power Williams sold into the marketplace at inflated prices. Williams did not admit any guilt for the power plant shutdown and, on orders from Cheney, FERC agreed to keep details of the settlement sealed. FERC later entered into a similar settlement with Reliant. The company agreed to forfeit $13.8 million it was owed by California's grid operator, did not admit to any wrongdoing, and FERC kept the details of the settlement confidential.
Williams and Reliant never admited guilt. But do you remember the audio tapes with Enron employees laughing about all the money they had stolen from poor "Grandma Millie" in California? That's who these guys are. They don't have to admit their guilt because there are tapes and transcripts that have recorded it for us. One Reliant employee is quoted in the report as having said, "we decided as a group that we were going to make [the money we lost] back up, so we turned like about almost every power plant off. It worked." A Williams employee is quoted as having told a powerplant operator that it wouldn't hurt the companies' feelings, "if the power plant that was down for repairs was kept offline for an extended period of time so the company could continue to be paid the 'premium' for its emergency energy supplies from the ISO."
Dick Cheney's decision to keep such blatant wrong-doing from the public is part noble, and part sickening. Cheney was protecting a friend. After all, the man who had hand-picked Dick to succed him as the top man at Halliburton sat on Williams' board of directors. And that man, Thomas Cruikshank, had told Cheney that FERC, "was in possession of incriminating audio tapes in which a Williams official and an AES power plant operator discussed keeping a Southern California power plant offline so Williams could continue to receive the $750 per megawatt hour premium for emergency power..."...
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Pat Flannery isn't wanted at April Boling's interview
Council Candidate April Boling got a free ride at the Realtors
08/09/07
by Pat Flannery http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
As a 30 year veteran of the San Diego Association of Realtors I went along this morning to the monthly meeting of its Government Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that Committee (you can't just apply, you have to be asked). But I have made a habit of turning up as a guest during the political season, going all the way back to when Maureen O'Connor (Mayor Mo) first ran for Mayor against Roger Hedgecock in 1983.
You can imagine my surprise and dismay this morning when I was asked to leave while they interviewed April Boling. I had turned up in May when they interviewed Carl DeMaio with no problem. What was different with Boling? I was looking forward to asking her about the prospect of amortizing the $1.2 billion pension deficit. She was on Murphy's Blue Ribbon Committee that reported on the pension problem. She knows it well.
I know she is friends with Mike Mercurio, the Realtors' Director of Government Affairs. They are fellow directors of the San Diego Taxpayers Association. Did Mercurio contrive to keep me out in order to ensure a friendly interview for Boling? If she needs that level of protection, Marti Emerald will chew her up in the election debates. Or will she only go to friendly debates, like those arranged by the Lincoln Club or the Chamber of Commerce?
08/09/07
by Pat Flannery http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
As a 30 year veteran of the San Diego Association of Realtors I went along this morning to the monthly meeting of its Government Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that Committee (you can't just apply, you have to be asked). But I have made a habit of turning up as a guest during the political season, going all the way back to when Maureen O'Connor (Mayor Mo) first ran for Mayor against Roger Hedgecock in 1983.
You can imagine my surprise and dismay this morning when I was asked to leave while they interviewed April Boling. I had turned up in May when they interviewed Carl DeMaio with no problem. What was different with Boling? I was looking forward to asking her about the prospect of amortizing the $1.2 billion pension deficit. She was on Murphy's Blue Ribbon Committee that reported on the pension problem. She knows it well.
I know she is friends with Mike Mercurio, the Realtors' Director of Government Affairs. They are fellow directors of the San Diego Taxpayers Association. Did Mercurio contrive to keep me out in order to ensure a friendly interview for Boling? If she needs that level of protection, Marti Emerald will chew her up in the election debates. Or will she only go to friendly debates, like those arranged by the Lincoln Club or the Chamber of Commerce?
The state prison miasma
from San Diego City Beat's "Last Blog on Earth"
August 9th, 2007 — Kelly Davis
http://lastblogonearth.com/2007/08/09/more-on-the-state-prison-miasma/
"Our sister paper, L.A. CityBeat, published a series of stories this week on prison reform issues, following up on the story we ran last week. Here are some interesting facts from the lead story by L.A.’s Mindy Farabee:
" In the last 30 years, California’s passed 1,000 new laws lengthening jail sentences.
"UC Berkeley professor Jonathan Simon has found that “almost all offenders are not likely to commit a crime” after they reach their mid 40s. Roughly one-fifth of the prison population is 45 or older.
" Legislative bill AB 900 authorizes Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger to spend $7.7 billion to build more prison facilities. That money comes from general obligation and lease-revenue bonds. By the time the bond money’s paid back, the real cost could be closer to $15 billion."
August 9th, 2007 — Kelly Davis
http://lastblogonearth.com/2007/08/09/more-on-the-state-prison-miasma/
"Our sister paper, L.A. CityBeat, published a series of stories this week on prison reform issues, following up on the story we ran last week. Here are some interesting facts from the lead story by L.A.’s Mindy Farabee:
" In the last 30 years, California’s passed 1,000 new laws lengthening jail sentences.
"UC Berkeley professor Jonathan Simon has found that “almost all offenders are not likely to commit a crime” after they reach their mid 40s. Roughly one-fifth of the prison population is 45 or older.
" Legislative bill AB 900 authorizes Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger to spend $7.7 billion to build more prison facilities. That money comes from general obligation and lease-revenue bonds. By the time the bond money’s paid back, the real cost could be closer to $15 billion."
Sunday, July 08, 2007
An Open Letter to Cheryl Cox about Gaylord--and Blackmail
Dear Cheryl:
It was odd that you accused the unions of blackmail regarding the Gaylord project that failed in Chula Vista. Whatever did you mean when you talked about blackmail on TV on January 6, 2007?
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines blackmail:
"Extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution."
Now Cheryl, did the unions do that? Does Gaylord (or you?) have a dirty secret that the unions threatened to expose? Isn't it really that you are blackmailing the unions by blaming them for the deal gone sour, when the true reasons have to do with envirmonmental problems?
Let me assure you, Cheryl, that if anyone is trying to blackmail you, the perfect defense against blackmail is to come clean in public, apologize, repair the harm you’ve done.
You know what I suspect? I suspect you were thinking about me and my pending lawsuit against you when the word “blackmail” popped out of your mouth so awkwardly. It’s your guilt that is talking, and your contempt for the law. You won’t give an inch, you won’t say you’re sorry, you just point the finger at someone else.
Instead of admitting you broke the law, you charge that someone who talks about your violations of law in public is “blackmailing” you. But if someone talks about your secrets PUBLICLY, Cheryl, that means they’re NOT blackmailing you. Me, for example. I believe that someone as dishonest and contemptuous of the law as you should not have control over public policy and public dollars. Of course, you have the option of becoming an honest person who respects the law. I urge you to do so. Right now you’re not making a wise choice, Cheryl.
Let’s see, who could really blackmail you? The press! Bonnie Dumanis! They are keeping your secrets. It sure isn’t me. Why don’t you do the right thing, and apologize, and come clean about what you and your lawyers did to Chula Vista Elementary School District and Castle Park Elementary. It would help taxpayers all over San Diego county. Your lawyer Dan Shinoff has gone on to cause even more trouble at MiraCosta College than he did at CVESD. The price tag for his folly was $3 million at MiraCosta.
It was a shame that you couldn’t tell the truth in the "Castle Park Five" case at CVESD. You wasted tax dollars once again. You forced Superintendent Lowell Billings to hide the truth about Robin Donlan and her friends, so you lost. Shame on you for wasting so many hundreds of thousands tax dollars on multiple criminal cover-ups.
It was odd that you accused the unions of blackmail regarding the Gaylord project that failed in Chula Vista. Whatever did you mean when you talked about blackmail on TV on January 6, 2007?
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines blackmail:
"Extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution."
Now Cheryl, did the unions do that? Does Gaylord (or you?) have a dirty secret that the unions threatened to expose? Isn't it really that you are blackmailing the unions by blaming them for the deal gone sour, when the true reasons have to do with envirmonmental problems?
Let me assure you, Cheryl, that if anyone is trying to blackmail you, the perfect defense against blackmail is to come clean in public, apologize, repair the harm you’ve done.
You know what I suspect? I suspect you were thinking about me and my pending lawsuit against you when the word “blackmail” popped out of your mouth so awkwardly. It’s your guilt that is talking, and your contempt for the law. You won’t give an inch, you won’t say you’re sorry, you just point the finger at someone else.
Instead of admitting you broke the law, you charge that someone who talks about your violations of law in public is “blackmailing” you. But if someone talks about your secrets PUBLICLY, Cheryl, that means they’re NOT blackmailing you. Me, for example. I believe that someone as dishonest and contemptuous of the law as you should not have control over public policy and public dollars. Of course, you have the option of becoming an honest person who respects the law. I urge you to do so. Right now you’re not making a wise choice, Cheryl.
Let’s see, who could really blackmail you? The press! Bonnie Dumanis! They are keeping your secrets. It sure isn’t me. Why don’t you do the right thing, and apologize, and come clean about what you and your lawyers did to Chula Vista Elementary School District and Castle Park Elementary. It would help taxpayers all over San Diego county. Your lawyer Dan Shinoff has gone on to cause even more trouble at MiraCosta College than he did at CVESD. The price tag for his folly was $3 million at MiraCosta.
It was a shame that you couldn’t tell the truth in the "Castle Park Five" case at CVESD. You wasted tax dollars once again. You forced Superintendent Lowell Billings to hide the truth about Robin Donlan and her friends, so you lost. Shame on you for wasting so many hundreds of thousands tax dollars on multiple criminal cover-ups.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Good Riddance, Gaylord
Below is a letter I found in Voice of San Diego about the Gaylord Entertainment project that fizzled in Chula Vista yesterday. Gaylord (and mayor Cheryl Cox) blamed the unions, but many believe that it was environmental problems on the sensitve bayfront that discouraged the developer. It's interesting that mayor Cheryl Cox, a longtime trustee of the nature preserve next to the planned development, never made a peep about environmental problems.
Ted Kennedy, Chula Vista
Thursday, July 5, 2007
My suspicion is that Gaylord actually read the environmental-impact report and isn't about to try to ameliorate the impacts and was looking for a dignified backdoor escape hatch. Too bad none of our local politicians read those pesky things or they wouldn't be so enamored of the good old boys from Tennessee. I am also concerned that it took our local environmental watchdogs quite a while to not be lapdogs instead. Now if we can just scare the Chargers away...
Ted Kennedy, Chula Vista
Thursday, July 5, 2007
My suspicion is that Gaylord actually read the environmental-impact report and isn't about to try to ameliorate the impacts and was looking for a dignified backdoor escape hatch. Too bad none of our local politicians read those pesky things or they wouldn't be so enamored of the good old boys from Tennessee. I am also concerned that it took our local environmental watchdogs quite a while to not be lapdogs instead. Now if we can just scare the Chargers away...
Monday, June 25, 2007
Who are attorneys supposed to represent when they're paid by a city?
You might think that Cheryl Cox, former CVESD trustee and now mayor of Chula Vista, would somehow be in charge of what the City of Chula Vista does. Cheryl says it isn't so.
She might have had something to do with the choice of John Witt, former San Diego city attorney, as a special counsel for Chula Vista. But she has nothing to do with the fact that he is suing city council candidate Patty Chavez for $100,000 because she lent herself $11,000 for her campaign and didn't report it to her opponent, Rudy Ramirez.
You might think Rudy Ramirez has something to do with this draconian attack on a housewife who ran for office. After all, he might want to strike some fear into her so she won't dare run against him again. Rudy himself is under investigation, he says. He claims he will be vindicated. Somehow, I think he's right. I don't imagine John Witt feels the same way about Ramirez that he does about Chavez. Ramirez is a Republican and Chavez is a Democrat.
Cheryl Cox says she's formed a committee to look at the rules.
How about a committee to look at how the rules are enforced, Cheryl? You've made it clear that you believe attorneys who work for cities should represent the interests of the elected officials. Somehow, I don't think you've changed your mind about that.
Jon Osborn of La Mesa disagrees with Cheryl Cox regarding the proper recipient of a public lawyer's loyalty.
On June 22, 2007 he wrote to the San Diego Union-Tribune:
"Judith Wenker (Letters, June 20) asked "How can [City Attorney Mike Aguirre] expect his city official clients, to whom he owes the duty of confidentiality and competent legal advice, to confide in him...? The client to which Mike Aguirre owes those duties is the city of San Diego."
Why do so many public officials depend so much on secrecy? Why can't public business be carried out in the open?
She might have had something to do with the choice of John Witt, former San Diego city attorney, as a special counsel for Chula Vista. But she has nothing to do with the fact that he is suing city council candidate Patty Chavez for $100,000 because she lent herself $11,000 for her campaign and didn't report it to her opponent, Rudy Ramirez.
You might think Rudy Ramirez has something to do with this draconian attack on a housewife who ran for office. After all, he might want to strike some fear into her so she won't dare run against him again. Rudy himself is under investigation, he says. He claims he will be vindicated. Somehow, I think he's right. I don't imagine John Witt feels the same way about Ramirez that he does about Chavez. Ramirez is a Republican and Chavez is a Democrat.
Cheryl Cox says she's formed a committee to look at the rules.
How about a committee to look at how the rules are enforced, Cheryl? You've made it clear that you believe attorneys who work for cities should represent the interests of the elected officials. Somehow, I don't think you've changed your mind about that.
Jon Osborn of La Mesa disagrees with Cheryl Cox regarding the proper recipient of a public lawyer's loyalty.
On June 22, 2007 he wrote to the San Diego Union-Tribune:
"Judith Wenker (Letters, June 20) asked "How can [City Attorney Mike Aguirre] expect his city official clients, to whom he owes the duty of confidentiality and competent legal advice, to confide in him...? The client to which Mike Aguirre owes those duties is the city of San Diego."
Why do so many public officials depend so much on secrecy? Why can't public business be carried out in the open?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)