Owen got $500,000 before joining board
By Jeff McDonald and Helen Gao
San Diego Union Tribune
July 22, 2008
"Three years before he joined the board of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., Artie “Chip” Owen and a company he managed bought 4.4 acres that they instantly sold to the government agency for a $500,000 profit, records show.
"Caravan Properties LLC bought the property on Market Street near 54th Street in San Diego from Federated Industries Inc. of Chicago for $1.8 million on May 1, 2000.
The transaction was time-stamped 10:59 a.m., the same minute Caravan filed a quitclaim deed transferring ownership to the company and Owen. The subsequent sale from Caravan and Owen to SEDC for $2.3 million also was time-stamped 10:59 a.m.
The transaction was first reported by San Diego blogger and real estate broker Pat Flannery.
Records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune show SEDC entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Caravan Properties in April 2000 – before Caravan bought the land from Federated Industries.
Critics questioned the sale. Owen “knew the land and bought it,” said Kathleen MacLeod, who volunteers for a number of community groups. “Why didn't SEDC buy it for $500,000 less?”
Owen... was appointed to the board in February 2003 by then-Mayor Dick Murphy. He currently is the chairman.
The Market Street deal was not his first with the SEDC...
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Dealings of former president Nancy Graham of CCDC to be examined
See all posts re Nancy Graham.
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas wants to conduct an investigation into the business connections of former CCDC president Nancy Graham (left), who resigned on July 24, 2008.
ROB DAVIS of Voice of San Diego wrote on July 25, 2008:
"Fred Maas, the chairman of the Centre City Development Corp.'s board of directors, said today he will seek a "fact-finding mission" to examine the circumstances surrounding former CCDC President Nancy Graham's involvement in the development project at 7th Avenue and Market Street downtown...
"Graham, who resigned Thursday, had previously been a business partner with a sister company of the 7th and Market developer, Related of California. The company, along with CityLink Investment Corp., is leading efforts to build the 41-story, $409-million downtown skyscraper. Under the current terms of the deal, which has not been finalized, the city of San Diego via CCDC will give the developers an $8.7 million subsidy to construct affordable housing in the building...
"Graham's resignation comes eight months after signing a three-year contract with CCDC. She does not get a severance and walks away from more than $496,000 in salary, as the contract set her annual pay at $248,000."
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas wants to conduct an investigation into the business connections of former CCDC president Nancy Graham (left), who resigned on July 24, 2008.ROB DAVIS of Voice of San Diego wrote on July 25, 2008:
"Fred Maas, the chairman of the Centre City Development Corp.'s board of directors, said today he will seek a "fact-finding mission" to examine the circumstances surrounding former CCDC President Nancy Graham's involvement in the development project at 7th Avenue and Market Street downtown...
"Graham, who resigned Thursday, had previously been a business partner with a sister company of the 7th and Market developer, Related of California. The company, along with CityLink Investment Corp., is leading efforts to build the 41-story, $409-million downtown skyscraper. Under the current terms of the deal, which has not been finalized, the city of San Diego via CCDC will give the developers an $8.7 million subsidy to construct affordable housing in the building...
"Graham's resignation comes eight months after signing a three-year contract with CCDC. She does not get a severance and walks away from more than $496,000 in salary, as the contract set her annual pay at $248,000."
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Carolyn Smith of SEDC out
By WILL CARLESS
Voice of San Diego
July 24, 2008
...Carolyn Y. Smith, the embattled president of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., was forced out of the office she has held for more than 14 years by a unanimous decision of her board Wednesday night.
In a nearly six-hour board meeting that drew dozens of community members and many supporters of Smith, the SEDC trustees ultimately decided to grant Smith a severance package of $100,350 and to bring an end to a tenure that, while supported by some in the community, has been marred by scandal of late.
Smith has been at the center of a maelstrom of publicity since a voiceofsandiego.org story two weeks ago revealed a system of hidden bonuses and extra compensation under which she has paid herself and her staff more than $1 million over the last five years...
Voice of San Diego
July 24, 2008
...Carolyn Y. Smith, the embattled president of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., was forced out of the office she has held for more than 14 years by a unanimous decision of her board Wednesday night.
In a nearly six-hour board meeting that drew dozens of community members and many supporters of Smith, the SEDC trustees ultimately decided to grant Smith a severance package of $100,350 and to bring an end to a tenure that, while supported by some in the community, has been marred by scandal of late.
Smith has been at the center of a maelstrom of publicity since a voiceofsandiego.org story two weeks ago revealed a system of hidden bonuses and extra compensation under which she has paid herself and her staff more than $1 million over the last five years...
Chip Owen and welfare for the rich
By ANDREW DONOHUE
Voice of San Diego
July 24, 2008
Months after Artie M. "Chip" Owen, now the chairman of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., earned $500,000 by flipping a piece of property to the agency, he signed over $400,000 of that money to another developer doing business with the agency.
Owen, who joined SEDC's board three years after the land transaction, was listed in public documents and discussion as the sole businessman involved in the land sale and as the manager of the corporation that exacted it, Caravan Properties LLC.
However, shortly after the deal finalized, the lion's share of the earnings shifted to Santa Monica-based Pacific Development Partners LLC, according to documents on file with the County Registrar's Office and SEDC...
Voice of San Diego
July 24, 2008
Months after Artie M. "Chip" Owen, now the chairman of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., earned $500,000 by flipping a piece of property to the agency, he signed over $400,000 of that money to another developer doing business with the agency.
Owen, who joined SEDC's board three years after the land transaction, was listed in public documents and discussion as the sole businessman involved in the land sale and as the manager of the corporation that exacted it, Caravan Properties LLC.
However, shortly after the deal finalized, the lion's share of the earnings shifted to Santa Monica-based Pacific Development Partners LLC, according to documents on file with the County Registrar's Office and SEDC...
Friday, July 11, 2008
San Diego demonstrates how to win an award for excellence in accounting
David Washburn of Voice of San Diego find that Enron by the Sea made the New York Times again, in an article about "skim funds."
"New Jersey and San Diego had versions of skim funds, and won "excellence in accounting" awards from the Government Finance Officers Association for many years while operating them. Each ended up with far less money in its pension fund than its books showed. The Securities and Exchange Commission found that San Diego had committed securities fraud by overstating the soundness of its pension fund; it is still investigating New Jersey."
"New Jersey and San Diego had versions of skim funds, and won "excellence in accounting" awards from the Government Finance Officers Association for many years while operating them. Each ended up with far less money in its pension fund than its books showed. The Securities and Exchange Commission found that San Diego had committed securities fraud by overstating the soundness of its pension fund; it is still investigating New Jersey."
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
SD City unions prefer secret pension deals; Mike Aguirre opposes them
San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre
Metropolitan Employees Association duo Ann Smith-Judie Italiano continue their odd alliances with Republican judges. The alliance began with the billion-dollar pension deal supported by the MEA bosses and former San Diego mayor Dick Murphy. And it continues with Judie/Ann's newly-forged alliance with Jan Goldsmith.
The bizarre alliance is apparently built on the expectation that San Diegans will continue to sacrifice their own well-being and that of their city, and will go back to using the City Attorney's office to cover-up wrongdoing in city government, in order to keep Judie/Ann in power.
And it involves a major flip-flop on the party of candidate Goldsmith. Scott Lewis explains:
The Union Pawns
By Scott Lewis
July 9, 2008
Voice of San Diego
It was rather amusing to see Judge Jan Goldsmith tout his endorsement from the San Diego Municipal Employees Association...
The best radio ad of the campaign season was Mr. Goldsmith's very own takedown of his rivals. Remember, he used a circus theme to paint City Hall as a mess...
[Quote from Jan Goldsmith's radio ad:]
In ring two, see Scott "the wonder pony" Peters jump through hoops, straddle fences and juggle important city issues all to please his labor union handlers.
Now that Goldsmith is the preferred choice of the firefighters union, the police union, and the white-collar City Hall workers, is it no longer so bad to be associated with unions?
Thursday, July 03, 2008
How come people cheat and at the same time claim the moral high ground?
Newsweek's Sharon Begley explains:
"...In a new study that will not exactly restore your faith in human nature, psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo of Northeastern University instructed 94 people to assign themselves and a stranger one of two tasks: an easy one, looking for hidden images in a photo, or a hard one, solving math and logic problems...Then everyone was asked, how fairly did you act?, from "extremely unfairly" (1) to "extremely fairly" (7). Next they watched someone else make the assignments, and judged that person's ethics. Selflessness was a virtual no-show: 87 out of 94 people opted for the easy task and gave the next guy the onerous one. Hypocrisy, however, showed up with bells on: every single person who made the selfish choice judged his own behavior more leniently—on average, 4.5 vs. 3.1—than that of someone else who grabbed the easy task for himself...
"...DeSteno said, it may be because "we have this automatic, gut-level instinct to preserve our self-image. In our heart, maybe we're just not as sensitive to our own transgressions." Adds Dan Batson of the University of Kansas, a pioneer in hypocrisy studies, "people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral"—such as assigning yourself the tough job....
""Since it's a cognitive process, we have volitional control over it," argues DeSteno. That matters because of another nasty aspect of hypocrisy: we apply the same moral relativism when judging the actions of people like ourselves. When "people like us" torture, it's justified; when people unlike us do, it's an atrocity..."
"...In a new study that will not exactly restore your faith in human nature, psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo of Northeastern University instructed 94 people to assign themselves and a stranger one of two tasks: an easy one, looking for hidden images in a photo, or a hard one, solving math and logic problems...Then everyone was asked, how fairly did you act?, from "extremely unfairly" (1) to "extremely fairly" (7). Next they watched someone else make the assignments, and judged that person's ethics. Selflessness was a virtual no-show: 87 out of 94 people opted for the easy task and gave the next guy the onerous one. Hypocrisy, however, showed up with bells on: every single person who made the selfish choice judged his own behavior more leniently—on average, 4.5 vs. 3.1—than that of someone else who grabbed the easy task for himself...
"...DeSteno said, it may be because "we have this automatic, gut-level instinct to preserve our self-image. In our heart, maybe we're just not as sensitive to our own transgressions." Adds Dan Batson of the University of Kansas, a pioneer in hypocrisy studies, "people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral"—such as assigning yourself the tough job....
""Since it's a cognitive process, we have volitional control over it," argues DeSteno. That matters because of another nasty aspect of hypocrisy: we apply the same moral relativism when judging the actions of people like ourselves. When "people like us" torture, it's justified; when people unlike us do, it's an atrocity..."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Public Entities fleecing taxpayers to avoid responsibility for wrongdoing
From Voice of San Diego
Letters
All Those Legal Bills
By Tom Adler, San Diego
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I was delighted to read that the city council has finally come to their senses and has begun to balk about paying for outside consultants.
It does seem a bit ironic however.
During their pension dustup the council members couldn't get enough of them. Council member Jim Madaffer, for instance, had no trouble at all in March 2006 requesting that the taxpayers of this city pay his personal attorney a sum of $327,231. These attorney fees were supposedly incurred to enable Mr. Madaffer to get advice from an attorney as to whether he had violated any laws in regard to the pension debacle. In more than 30 years as a lawyer, I never knew anyone who paid this amount to get advice from an attorney as to whether they had broken the law. He wasn't the only city councilperson to request these outrageous fees. Councilman Brian Maienschein requested $345,000. Councilwoman Toni Atkins requested $365,696.
The other councilpersons were close behind with their requests with the exception of Councilwoman Donna Frye, who not only refused to take taxpayer money but also paid her own attorney fees which amounted to $5,000.
I wonder if a private citizen could have paid these fees, which to this date have been unaccounted for due to the refusal of the city council and mayor to release the records necessary for a full accounting. In any event, the council approved these fees and also fees for the representation of any other city employee who was to be interviewed or deposed. It didn't matter whether or not any of them had been sued or even suspected of wrongdoing. They all received counsel from private attorneys at the taxpayers' expense. At last count, the fees paid for these counseling attorneys was in excess of $3 million.
Maybe if the city had competent council members and skilled employees there would be less need for this continual army of experts who troop through City Hall with their main strength being how to bill.
Letters
All Those Legal Bills
By Tom Adler, San Diego
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I was delighted to read that the city council has finally come to their senses and has begun to balk about paying for outside consultants.
It does seem a bit ironic however.
During their pension dustup the council members couldn't get enough of them. Council member Jim Madaffer, for instance, had no trouble at all in March 2006 requesting that the taxpayers of this city pay his personal attorney a sum of $327,231. These attorney fees were supposedly incurred to enable Mr. Madaffer to get advice from an attorney as to whether he had violated any laws in regard to the pension debacle. In more than 30 years as a lawyer, I never knew anyone who paid this amount to get advice from an attorney as to whether they had broken the law. He wasn't the only city councilperson to request these outrageous fees. Councilman Brian Maienschein requested $345,000. Councilwoman Toni Atkins requested $365,696.
The other councilpersons were close behind with their requests with the exception of Councilwoman Donna Frye, who not only refused to take taxpayer money but also paid her own attorney fees which amounted to $5,000.
I wonder if a private citizen could have paid these fees, which to this date have been unaccounted for due to the refusal of the city council and mayor to release the records necessary for a full accounting. In any event, the council approved these fees and also fees for the representation of any other city employee who was to be interviewed or deposed. It didn't matter whether or not any of them had been sued or even suspected of wrongdoing. They all received counsel from private attorneys at the taxpayers' expense. At last count, the fees paid for these counseling attorneys was in excess of $3 million.
Maybe if the city had competent council members and skilled employees there would be less need for this continual army of experts who troop through City Hall with their main strength being how to bill.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Judie Italiano announces that she's MEA's executive-for-life
The San Diego Union Tribune quotes Metropolitan Employees Association general manager Judie Italiano as saying:
"MEA is never, ever, as long as I can draw a breath, endorsing Mike Aguirre."
Well, that's pretty clear. But MEA's lawyer Ann Smith has made it clear that she and former president Judie Italiano are a package deal. Ann Smith "threatened" to resign if Judie were not named general manager.
Judie and Ann are perfect duplicates of California Teachers Association's controlling couple, Carolyn Doggett and Beverly Tucker, the CTA executive director and her lawyer, who also seem to be a package deal.
Well, San Diego, it seems we're in for a long ride with JudieAnn Italismith. We'll have their billion-dollar budget-busting noses in faces, making demands for some time.
"MEA is never, ever, as long as I can draw a breath, endorsing Mike Aguirre."
Well, that's pretty clear. But MEA's lawyer Ann Smith has made it clear that she and former president Judie Italiano are a package deal. Ann Smith "threatened" to resign if Judie were not named general manager.
Judie and Ann are perfect duplicates of California Teachers Association's controlling couple, Carolyn Doggett and Beverly Tucker, the CTA executive director and her lawyer, who also seem to be a package deal.
Well, San Diego, it seems we're in for a long ride with JudieAnn Italismith. We'll have their billion-dollar budget-busting noses in faces, making demands for some time.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Aguirre has recovered $10 million, more than he's spent in pension lawsuits
Mike Aguirre's campaign for reelection just got a big shot in the arm. His accusers must now admit that his aggressive pursuit of those who defrauded San Diego in the pension scam and related investigations has paid off for the city.
$4.35 million settlement in pension lawsuit
Law firm represented city before the SEC
By Craig Gustafson
San Diego Union Tribune
June 14, 2008
Vinson & Elkins, the Houston-based law firm whose two-year investigation into San Diego's finances was criticized as a whitewash, has agreed to settle with the city for $4.35 million.
The firm would be the fourth to settle lawsuits related to financial and legal troubles from the city practice of increasing employee pension benefits while cutting funding for them.
Settlements
Pension-related settlements:
July 2006: Two auditing firms, Caporicci & Larson and Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, paid $1.65 million total to the city. Calderon conducted the city's annual financial audits, which were later found to contain million of dollars in errors. Caporicci, of Costa Mesa, later bought the firm and denied any wrongdoing by itself or Calderon.
November 2006: San Francisco-based Callan Associates, a pension consultant that advised San Diego's retirement system, agreed to pay $4.5 million to the city. City Attorney Michael Aguirre accused them of faulty investment advice. The firm admitted to no wrongdoing.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre classified the settlement as a victory for his pension-related lawsuits, even though he had sought $10 million.
Vinson & Elkins, which also represented Enron, admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay back $3.25 million to the city and forgive $1.1 million in outstanding bills, Aguirre said. The City Council will vote Tuesday on the settlement...
$4.35 million settlement in pension lawsuit
Law firm represented city before the SEC
By Craig Gustafson
San Diego Union Tribune
June 14, 2008
Vinson & Elkins, the Houston-based law firm whose two-year investigation into San Diego's finances was criticized as a whitewash, has agreed to settle with the city for $4.35 million.
The firm would be the fourth to settle lawsuits related to financial and legal troubles from the city practice of increasing employee pension benefits while cutting funding for them.
Settlements
Pension-related settlements:
July 2006: Two auditing firms, Caporicci & Larson and Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, paid $1.65 million total to the city. Calderon conducted the city's annual financial audits, which were later found to contain million of dollars in errors. Caporicci, of Costa Mesa, later bought the firm and denied any wrongdoing by itself or Calderon.
November 2006: San Francisco-based Callan Associates, a pension consultant that advised San Diego's retirement system, agreed to pay $4.5 million to the city. City Attorney Michael Aguirre accused them of faulty investment advice. The firm admitted to no wrongdoing.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre classified the settlement as a victory for his pension-related lawsuits, even though he had sought $10 million.
Vinson & Elkins, which also represented Enron, admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay back $3.25 million to the city and forgive $1.1 million in outstanding bills, Aguirre said. The City Council will vote Tuesday on the settlement...
Saturday, June 07, 2008
The Cheryl-Greg connection and a political prosecution
Patsy Fritz seems to agree with me about who approved of the shameful prosecution of Steve Castaneda. The D.A.'s office claimed that Castaneda had intended to buy a certain condo, and that even though he never bought it, the D.A.'s office believed that Castaneda lied about wanting to buy it. San Diego's district attorney charged a man with a dozen or so felonies based on the apparent ability to read his mind. San Diego needs a new district attorney.
[Photos: Cheryl Cox on left, Bonnie Dumanis far right]
Here is a well-written message I found on the San Diego Growth Blog:
"What we have here, I think, is the effort to curry favor by Dumanis, and the Supes' quid-pro-quo for her support during their election campaigns.
"...I have wondered why the Lincoln Club and Republican Central Committee are not shown as "friends of the court" in O'Toole's capers. I see this as Bonnie sucking up not only to the Supes, but to the downtown Republican establishment. She's been a Republican for some time (prior to her first race for DA) but for obvious reasons needs to burnish her Republican rep to get the downtown establishment's support.
"I truly regret the time, $$$ and effort I put into that race, garnering votes in North County for Dumanis. I was S0 idealistic about Bonnie, but she's turned into just another run-of-the mill influence peddler - for her own interests. Sad! She could have been a real force for ethics and reform!"
...Patsy
Solengo Capital wants Dealbreaker.com to keep Solengo prospectus secret
Harvard's Citizen Media Law Project reports:
Solengo Capital Advisors v. Dealbreaker.com
Posted June 6th, 2008 by David Ardia
Threat type: LawsuitDate: 03/30/2007
Subject Area(s): Copyright
PartiesParty Issuing Threat:
Solengo Capital Advisors ULC
Party Receiving Threat:
Dealbreaker, Elizabeth Spiers, John Carney, Bess Levin, John Doe and Jane DoeType of Threatening Party:
Organization
Description:
Dealbreaker.com, a website that describes itself as "an online business tabloid and Wall Street gossip site," was sued for copyright infringement by Solengo Capital, a hedge fund founded by former Amaranth Advisors traders, over Dealbreaker's posting of Solengo's prospectus, which contained information about the firm's planned structure, trading and risk management platforms, and biographies of its founders.
In response to Solengo's initial threat to file a lawsuit on March 28, 2007, editors at Dealbreaker said the materials were of legitimate news value and refused to remove them, telling Reuters:
"We think it's valuable to our readers and the public to be able to see the information in it," said John Carney, DealBreaker editor, in an interview on Friday.
The legal dust-up is the latest stemming from the abrupt implosion of $9.3 billion hedge fund Amaranth last year, which shocked investors and raised awareness of hedge fund risk. The recent founding of Solengo by some of the energy traders blamed for the $6 billion in losses that caused the Amaranth collapse has also generated controversy.
Carney, a former corporate lawyer, said his site plans to contest any legal challenge. "We're willing to take it as far as it merits. I don't expect to defy a court order or go to jail for it, however."
On March 30, 2007, Solengo sought a preliminary injunction ordering Dealbreaker to remove the prospectus from its website. After the court denied the injunction request, Solengo filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement against the website and several of its editors.
On April 2, 2007, the court issued a preliminary injunction on consent of the parties, requiring Dealbreaker to remove the prospectus pending the outcome of the litigation. On May 24, 2007, Dealbreaker filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Solengo had failed to register its copyright in the prospectus prior to filing suit.
In August 2007, the parties reached a settlement, and the prospectus appears to have been permanently removed from the Dealbreaker site.
Solengo Capital Advisors v. Dealbreaker.com
Posted June 6th, 2008 by David Ardia
Threat type: LawsuitDate: 03/30/2007
Subject Area(s): Copyright
PartiesParty Issuing Threat:
Solengo Capital Advisors ULC
Party Receiving Threat:
Dealbreaker, Elizabeth Spiers, John Carney, Bess Levin, John Doe and Jane DoeType of Threatening Party:
Organization
Description:
Dealbreaker.com, a website that describes itself as "an online business tabloid and Wall Street gossip site," was sued for copyright infringement by Solengo Capital, a hedge fund founded by former Amaranth Advisors traders, over Dealbreaker's posting of Solengo's prospectus, which contained information about the firm's planned structure, trading and risk management platforms, and biographies of its founders.
In response to Solengo's initial threat to file a lawsuit on March 28, 2007, editors at Dealbreaker said the materials were of legitimate news value and refused to remove them, telling Reuters:
"We think it's valuable to our readers and the public to be able to see the information in it," said John Carney, DealBreaker editor, in an interview on Friday.
The legal dust-up is the latest stemming from the abrupt implosion of $9.3 billion hedge fund Amaranth last year, which shocked investors and raised awareness of hedge fund risk. The recent founding of Solengo by some of the energy traders blamed for the $6 billion in losses that caused the Amaranth collapse has also generated controversy.
Carney, a former corporate lawyer, said his site plans to contest any legal challenge. "We're willing to take it as far as it merits. I don't expect to defy a court order or go to jail for it, however."
On March 30, 2007, Solengo sought a preliminary injunction ordering Dealbreaker to remove the prospectus from its website. After the court denied the injunction request, Solengo filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement against the website and several of its editors.
On April 2, 2007, the court issued a preliminary injunction on consent of the parties, requiring Dealbreaker to remove the prospectus pending the outcome of the litigation. On May 24, 2007, Dealbreaker filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Solengo had failed to register its copyright in the prospectus prior to filing suit.
In August 2007, the parties reached a settlement, and the prospectus appears to have been permanently removed from the Dealbreaker site.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Shut up, Scott Peters
Voice of San Diego
Goldsmith Scolds Peters
Judge Jan Goldsmith today took Council President Scott Peters to task for calling on the district attorney and the Attorney General's Office to investigate alleged "criminal extortion" by incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
"I want to put a stop to this. This is wrong, it's wrong if it's against Aguirre, it's wrong if it's against anyone else," Goldsmith said.
Peters called on District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to investigate the claims against Aguirre, which first surfaced in a report released Tuesday by the Attorney General's Office...
Dumanis has since said she won't conduct an investigation because she has endorsed Goldsmith for city attorney. It's also doubtful that what Aguirre is accused to have done would constitute criminal extortion anyway, as I explained in this post earlier this week.
Goldsmith said that Peters needs to stay out of it. He said the Attorney General's Office has all the evidence it needs to come to its own conclusions about whether to investigate the "extortion."
"They're professionals, if they believe there's probable cause, they can pursue it," he said.
-- WILL CARLESS
Friday, May 23, 2008
Goldsmith Scolds Peters
Judge Jan Goldsmith today took Council President Scott Peters to task for calling on the district attorney and the Attorney General's Office to investigate alleged "criminal extortion" by incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
"I want to put a stop to this. This is wrong, it's wrong if it's against Aguirre, it's wrong if it's against anyone else," Goldsmith said.
Peters called on District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to investigate the claims against Aguirre, which first surfaced in a report released Tuesday by the Attorney General's Office...
Dumanis has since said she won't conduct an investigation because she has endorsed Goldsmith for city attorney. It's also doubtful that what Aguirre is accused to have done would constitute criminal extortion anyway, as I explained in this post earlier this week.
Goldsmith said that Peters needs to stay out of it. He said the Attorney General's Office has all the evidence it needs to come to its own conclusions about whether to investigate the "extortion."
"They're professionals, if they believe there's probable cause, they can pursue it," he said.
-- WILL CARLESS
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A reminder of odd bedfellows (unions and Republicans) created by the pension crisis
Why did unions in San Diego support Republican Brian Maienschein for the City Council? It was a match made when Republican Mayor Dick Murphy made his pact with city unions that unions would be granted extremely generous pension benefits in return for helping cover up the fact that the pension system was underfunded. Today I saw a reminder of the bizarreness of these strange bedfellows:
Voice of San Diego
by Scott Lewis
Link
You might remember my discussion of the potential awkwardness that would come up when Brian Maienschein funded his city attorney campaign.
To refresh, he's going to use the stash of funds left over from his 2004 campaign for City Council. Today the city clerk posted his latest financial disclosures and sure enough, the transfer is complete. Now, all those donors to his 2004 campaign are listed, essentially, as donors to his city attorney campaign...
One of them listed, for example, is attorney Karen Heumann. She, of course, is now one of the most important people in City Attorney Mike Aguirre's administration.
The second name that really stood out was Tony Krvaric -- the head of the Republican Party of San Diego County. It's fair to say Krvaric is not a supporter of Maienschein's bid for city attorney...
Ironic that Krvaric might have helped pay for that mailer.
The list of people who also are now funding Maienschein's city attorney campaign includes Murray Galinson, who is actually counted as a supporter of Scott Peters.
The list itself is a who's who:
Jerry Butkiewicz, who until recently was the Secretary-Treasurer of the San Diego Imperial Counties Labor Council...
Fred Sainz, the mayor's spokesman
Judie Italiano, general manager of the city employees' white collar union
City Councilman Kevin Faulconer
Phil Thalheimer, who's running for City Council District 1
Ronne Froman, the former COO of the city
Joe Craver, the head of the local Red Cross...
Voice of San Diego
by Scott Lewis
Link
You might remember my discussion of the potential awkwardness that would come up when Brian Maienschein funded his city attorney campaign.
To refresh, he's going to use the stash of funds left over from his 2004 campaign for City Council. Today the city clerk posted his latest financial disclosures and sure enough, the transfer is complete. Now, all those donors to his 2004 campaign are listed, essentially, as donors to his city attorney campaign...
One of them listed, for example, is attorney Karen Heumann. She, of course, is now one of the most important people in City Attorney Mike Aguirre's administration.
The second name that really stood out was Tony Krvaric -- the head of the Republican Party of San Diego County. It's fair to say Krvaric is not a supporter of Maienschein's bid for city attorney...
Ironic that Krvaric might have helped pay for that mailer.
The list of people who also are now funding Maienschein's city attorney campaign includes Murray Galinson, who is actually counted as a supporter of Scott Peters.
The list itself is a who's who:
Jerry Butkiewicz, who until recently was the Secretary-Treasurer of the San Diego Imperial Counties Labor Council...
Fred Sainz, the mayor's spokesman
Judie Italiano, general manager of the city employees' white collar union
City Councilman Kevin Faulconer
Phil Thalheimer, who's running for City Council District 1
Ronne Froman, the former COO of the city
Joe Craver, the head of the local Red Cross...
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Greg Cox fails to address question of tipster in Steve Castaneda case
Bob Castaneda, the brother of Chula Vista Councilman Steve Castaneda, raised important questions about the two prosecutions carried out by the San Diego District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit.
Bonnie Dumanis appointed Peter O'Toole to bring in two political opponents of Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox for questioning. Both of them were charged with lying during these odd investigations. How did these investigations get initiated? Why were two men prosecuted for felony perjury even though the investigations uncovered no crimes?
Why has a complaint about Cheryl Cox and her agents been ignored by the Special Operations department?
I can tell you who was the tipster in that matter. I was!
Supervisor Greg Cox has written a letter that does absolutely nothing to answer the questions that have been raised. Of course Cox protests that he has done nothing wrong. But how will he restore the credibility of the District Attorney's office? He makes no effort to do so.
Here is a comparison of the letters by Bob Castaneda and Greg Cox.
The question remains: was the PIU tipster a friend of Cheryl and Greg Cox?
The answer seems sort of obvious, doesn't it?
Bonnie Dumanis appointed Peter O'Toole to bring in two political opponents of Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox for questioning. Both of them were charged with lying during these odd investigations. How did these investigations get initiated? Why were two men prosecuted for felony perjury even though the investigations uncovered no crimes?
Why has a complaint about Cheryl Cox and her agents been ignored by the Special Operations department?
I can tell you who was the tipster in that matter. I was!
Supervisor Greg Cox has written a letter that does absolutely nothing to answer the questions that have been raised. Of course Cox protests that he has done nothing wrong. But how will he restore the credibility of the District Attorney's office? He makes no effort to do so.
Here is a comparison of the letters by Bob Castaneda and Greg Cox.
The question remains: was the PIU tipster a friend of Cheryl and Greg Cox?
The answer seems sort of obvious, doesn't it?
Sunday, May 04, 2008
San Diego public entities misuse their human resources--and their financial resources
OCEANSIDE: Judge says city discriminated against former employee
By CRAIG TENBROECK
April 29, 2008
OCEANSIDE ---- A Superior Court judge has upbraided the city of Oceanside for wrongfully firing a police department employee with an immune system disorder, saying there was no excuse for her to have been "so badly mistreated."
"This court has not seen such lack of civility and simple common decency in quite a long time," Judge Michael Orfield said last week in a tentative ruling that described the 2006 firing.
"The plaintiff was not being removed for incompetence, for violation of rules or a breach of trust," he said. "She was being removed from a 12-year career because of a perceived medical condition that (without the slightest confirmation) was without the possibility of accommodation."
Orfield concluded that the city discriminated against the employee, Michele Morgans, and should pay damages of $628,000.
Morgans worked as a field evidence technician for the police department.
The judge's ruling came after a 15-day trial at the Vista courthouse...
Morgans, 50, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that the ruling vindicated her.
"There's nothing worse than having an illness or something you can't control," said Morgans. "But to get fired because the city doesn't like it was heartbreaking."
City Attorney John Mullen said Tuesday that the City Council will meet in closed session as early as next week to discuss its options...
In 1999, Morgans was diagnosed with Graves' Disease, a type of autoimmune disorder that causes overactivity of the thyroid gland. In Morgans' case, it involved swelling of the tissues in her eye socket, requiring multiple surgeries.
She filed a worker's compensation claim against the city in 2003, saying that on-the-job stress over the death of Officer Tony Zeppetella aggravated her condition. Zeppetella was fatally shot June 13, 2003, while making a traffic stop. Morgans participated in the officer's autopsy.
The city contested Morgans' worker's compensation claim, but she prevailed in late 2005.
Shortly after that, the city decided Morgans could no longer be a field evidence technician because that job was inherently stressful, Mullen said. When the city offered her other jobs, she declined.
Daniel Carroll, Morgans' attorney, said the positions that the city offered paid less than she was making as an evidence technician...
"The only accommodations she needed were the ability to come in late when she had a headache, and if they had another situation, like an officer-involved shooting, don't send her to the autopsy," he said.
On Jan. 10, 2006, the city placed her on administrative leave and told her to stay away from city facilities. She was eventually fired.
Orfield said the strong tone of his tentative ruling was deliberate.
"It is meant to convey to the powers that be within the city the need to go back to the drawing board and rethink how they should handle similar situations in the future," he said.
The city's police department has a history of expensive litigation. Several years ago, Terry Johnson, Oceanside's mayor at the time, requested a report analyzing legal expenses for the department.
The report showed that from 1992 to 2002, the city spent about $5.87 million on litigation involving the police department...
By CRAIG TENBROECK
April 29, 2008
OCEANSIDE ---- A Superior Court judge has upbraided the city of Oceanside for wrongfully firing a police department employee with an immune system disorder, saying there was no excuse for her to have been "so badly mistreated."
"This court has not seen such lack of civility and simple common decency in quite a long time," Judge Michael Orfield said last week in a tentative ruling that described the 2006 firing.
"The plaintiff was not being removed for incompetence, for violation of rules or a breach of trust," he said. "She was being removed from a 12-year career because of a perceived medical condition that (without the slightest confirmation) was without the possibility of accommodation."
Orfield concluded that the city discriminated against the employee, Michele Morgans, and should pay damages of $628,000.
Morgans worked as a field evidence technician for the police department.
The judge's ruling came after a 15-day trial at the Vista courthouse...
Morgans, 50, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that the ruling vindicated her.
"There's nothing worse than having an illness or something you can't control," said Morgans. "But to get fired because the city doesn't like it was heartbreaking."
City Attorney John Mullen said Tuesday that the City Council will meet in closed session as early as next week to discuss its options...
In 1999, Morgans was diagnosed with Graves' Disease, a type of autoimmune disorder that causes overactivity of the thyroid gland. In Morgans' case, it involved swelling of the tissues in her eye socket, requiring multiple surgeries.
She filed a worker's compensation claim against the city in 2003, saying that on-the-job stress over the death of Officer Tony Zeppetella aggravated her condition. Zeppetella was fatally shot June 13, 2003, while making a traffic stop. Morgans participated in the officer's autopsy.
The city contested Morgans' worker's compensation claim, but she prevailed in late 2005.
Shortly after that, the city decided Morgans could no longer be a field evidence technician because that job was inherently stressful, Mullen said. When the city offered her other jobs, she declined.
Daniel Carroll, Morgans' attorney, said the positions that the city offered paid less than she was making as an evidence technician...
"The only accommodations she needed were the ability to come in late when she had a headache, and if they had another situation, like an officer-involved shooting, don't send her to the autopsy," he said.
On Jan. 10, 2006, the city placed her on administrative leave and told her to stay away from city facilities. She was eventually fired.
Orfield said the strong tone of his tentative ruling was deliberate.
"It is meant to convey to the powers that be within the city the need to go back to the drawing board and rethink how they should handle similar situations in the future," he said.
The city's police department has a history of expensive litigation. Several years ago, Terry Johnson, Oceanside's mayor at the time, requested a report analyzing legal expenses for the department.
The report showed that from 1992 to 2002, the city spent about $5.87 million on litigation involving the police department...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Why wasn't Bonnie Dumanis' Public Integrity Unit interested in this case?
Voice of San Diego
DA Won't Prosecute Tom Story
So the charges have been formally dismissedagainst former Sunroad executive Tom Story, and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has released a statement saying she won't be bringing charges either.
A recap: Story was the former city official who was hired by Sunroad Enterprises and then became embroiled in the scandal over a building in Kearny Mesa that violated Federal Aviation Authority guidelines. Story was charged with violating lobbying laws by City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
But Aguirre was thrown off the case because a judge ruled he had violated ethical rules. That has left the prosecution of Story in something of a legal limbo.
Earlier this month, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis released a statement saying that she would at least consider bringing charges against Story. Now, Dumanis states that her office does not have jurisdiction to bring charges against Story.
There is one other way Story could be charged. Earlier this month, apparently on the advice of Dumanis, Mayor Jerry Sanders asked the City Council to consider hiring a special prosecutor to go after Story.
The City Council reached a deadlock, voting 4-4, which meant that no special prosecutor was appointed.
Story, it seems, is free to go about his business.
-- WILL CARLESS
April 30, 2008
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/05/01/this_just_in/209story043008.txt
DA Won't Prosecute Tom Story
So the charges have been formally dismissedagainst former Sunroad executive Tom Story, and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has released a statement saying she won't be bringing charges either.
A recap: Story was the former city official who was hired by Sunroad Enterprises and then became embroiled in the scandal over a building in Kearny Mesa that violated Federal Aviation Authority guidelines. Story was charged with violating lobbying laws by City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
But Aguirre was thrown off the case because a judge ruled he had violated ethical rules. That has left the prosecution of Story in something of a legal limbo.
Earlier this month, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis released a statement saying that she would at least consider bringing charges against Story. Now, Dumanis states that her office does not have jurisdiction to bring charges against Story.
There is one other way Story could be charged. Earlier this month, apparently on the advice of Dumanis, Mayor Jerry Sanders asked the City Council to consider hiring a special prosecutor to go after Story.
The City Council reached a deadlock, voting 4-4, which meant that no special prosecutor was appointed.
Story, it seems, is free to go about his business.
-- WILL CARLESS
April 30, 2008
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/05/01/this_just_in/209story043008.txt
Monday, April 28, 2008
Voice of San Diego reports scientific discovery by Sal D'Anna
VOSD comments on April 24, 2008 letter "C'mon Mary":
...19. Sal D'Anna wrote on April 26, 2008 7:01 PM:
"Research has led to discovery of heaviest element known to science. The new element,Governmentium(Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, atomic mass=312.
Particles are held together by forces called morons,which are surrounded by lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons,it is inert; however,it can be detected,because it impedes every action that it comes into contact.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization where a portion of the assistant and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons,forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical state is referred to as critical morass which Researchers describe as San Diego at this time."
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/04/28/letters/624mary042408.txt#info
...19. Sal D'Anna wrote on April 26, 2008 7:01 PM:
"Research has led to discovery of heaviest element known to science. The new element,Governmentium(Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, atomic mass=312.
Particles are held together by forces called morons,which are surrounded by lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons,it is inert; however,it can be detected,because it impedes every action that it comes into contact.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization where a portion of the assistant and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons,forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical state is referred to as critical morass which Researchers describe as San Diego at this time."
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/04/28/letters/624mary042408.txt#info
Friday, April 25, 2008
Who is feeding tips to Bonnie Dumanis' Public Integrity Unit?
Lots of people want to know who contaminated Todd Sommer's tissue samples with arsenic and caused Cynthia Sommer to spend over two years in jail in San Diego for a murder that apparently never happened. This is important to know, but it was a freak occurrence, not part of a pattern.
We are seeing a pattern in another part of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' office: the Public Integrity Unit.
I'm interested to know who has been playing puppet master to Bonnie Dumanis.
Who is it who manages to get Patrick O'Toole's Public Integrity Unit to investigate Cheryl Cox's political opponents, then charge them with perjury during those investigations when O'Toole can't find anything more serious to charge them with?
I have an idea of who it might be.
I suspect it's the same person who got the County Grand Jury to investigate Proposition 227 compliance at Castle Park Elementary School at a time when crimes were being covered up at the school.
I reported those crimes to Supervisor Greg Cox. The only response from the county was the grand jury investigation.
I believe the District Attorney either got a direct "suggestion" from Greg Cox regarding all three of these investigations, or at least got a "go ahead" from Mr. Cox after one of his wife's associates came to the D.A. with a "tip."
And who might this other tipster be? My list of possibilities starts with Bob Watkins of Lincoln Club and San Diego County Office of Education fame, who has been endorsed by Cheryl Cox in his run for Duncan Hunter's seat.
We are seeing a pattern in another part of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' office: the Public Integrity Unit.
I'm interested to know who has been playing puppet master to Bonnie Dumanis.
Who is it who manages to get Patrick O'Toole's Public Integrity Unit to investigate Cheryl Cox's political opponents, then charge them with perjury during those investigations when O'Toole can't find anything more serious to charge them with?
I have an idea of who it might be.
I suspect it's the same person who got the County Grand Jury to investigate Proposition 227 compliance at Castle Park Elementary School at a time when crimes were being covered up at the school.
I reported those crimes to Supervisor Greg Cox. The only response from the county was the grand jury investigation.
I believe the District Attorney either got a direct "suggestion" from Greg Cox regarding all three of these investigations, or at least got a "go ahead" from Mr. Cox after one of his wife's associates came to the D.A. with a "tip."
And who might this other tipster be? My list of possibilities starts with Bob Watkins of Lincoln Club and San Diego County Office of Education fame, who has been endorsed by Cheryl Cox in his run for Duncan Hunter's seat.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob is being bullied
County Supervisor Dianne Jacob recently published an essay in Voice of San Diego. She wrote:
"I was sued by the owner of the Los Angeles Times for speaking my mind about the business practices of one his companies, ironic because people involved in journalism are usually fierce defenders of free speech. Sam Zell’s Manufactured Home Communities--now operating under the name Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.-- owns and operates more than 300 mobile home parks in 28 states, including four parks in the district I represent. At first, it was difficult to take Zell or his lawsuit seriously. There’s something amusing about being sued for defamation by an individual who calls himself the “grave dancer"...” I am convinced that Zell is using our judicial system to bully me and intimidate those who dare question how MHC treats its customers..."
I think too many people are terrified of being sued. Being sued is really not so bad. I should know; I'm being sued for defamation by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz. My friends greet me with creased foreheads and downturned mouths when they ask me how I am. I'm fine.
What is terrible is that many people are silent about wrongdoing for fear of being sued. It seems to me that some people (like the partners at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, who are suing me in their spare time, when they are not too busy campaigning against lawsuit abuse) are trying to turn our entire society into a place where criminals rule the roost and witnesses are afraid to testify.
Elly Dotseth is concerned about Dianne Jacob and all who speak out. Elly wrote a letter to Voice of San Diego on April 16, 2008 saying:
"...people in our supposedly free country have begun to keep quiet from fear of being sued or blackballed in some other way. I have recently spoken out in criticism of the way the NTC Foundation is handling leases with nonprofit arts groups, and despite the reply from the director, I stand by my criticism. If he were to sue me, though, that would really be horrific."
Here is my response to Elly:
Kudos for standing up to the McMillin/NTC Foundation, and please be assured that it is not so bad getting sued when you have nothing to hide and the big guys that are suing you have plenty to hide. You simply file an answer, then go down to the courthouse and get a deposition subpoena that has been signed by the Clerk of the Court. Make some copies, fill them out, and serve them on the people who are suing you. They filed the lawsuit, so they had better be prepared to testify under oath and produce documents. If they fail to do so, you file a motion to compel that looks something like THIS.
"I was sued by the owner of the Los Angeles Times for speaking my mind about the business practices of one his companies, ironic because people involved in journalism are usually fierce defenders of free speech. Sam Zell’s Manufactured Home Communities--now operating under the name Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.-- owns and operates more than 300 mobile home parks in 28 states, including four parks in the district I represent. At first, it was difficult to take Zell or his lawsuit seriously. There’s something amusing about being sued for defamation by an individual who calls himself the “grave dancer"...” I am convinced that Zell is using our judicial system to bully me and intimidate those who dare question how MHC treats its customers..."
I think too many people are terrified of being sued. Being sued is really not so bad. I should know; I'm being sued for defamation by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz. My friends greet me with creased foreheads and downturned mouths when they ask me how I am. I'm fine.
What is terrible is that many people are silent about wrongdoing for fear of being sued. It seems to me that some people (like the partners at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, who are suing me in their spare time, when they are not too busy campaigning against lawsuit abuse) are trying to turn our entire society into a place where criminals rule the roost and witnesses are afraid to testify.
Elly Dotseth is concerned about Dianne Jacob and all who speak out. Elly wrote a letter to Voice of San Diego on April 16, 2008 saying:
"...people in our supposedly free country have begun to keep quiet from fear of being sued or blackballed in some other way. I have recently spoken out in criticism of the way the NTC Foundation is handling leases with nonprofit arts groups, and despite the reply from the director, I stand by my criticism. If he were to sue me, though, that would really be horrific."
Here is my response to Elly:
Kudos for standing up to the McMillin/NTC Foundation, and please be assured that it is not so bad getting sued when you have nothing to hide and the big guys that are suing you have plenty to hide. You simply file an answer, then go down to the courthouse and get a deposition subpoena that has been signed by the Clerk of the Court. Make some copies, fill them out, and serve them on the people who are suing you. They filed the lawsuit, so they had better be prepared to testify under oath and produce documents. If they fail to do so, you file a motion to compel that looks something like THIS.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Dumanis: This prosecution is too bizarre to be anything other than politically motivated
Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda goes on trial today in the second politically-motivated prosecution out of a total of two prosecutions by the secretive "Public Integrity Unit" formed by San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and the recently low-profile Patrick O'Toole.
Prosecutor Patrick O'Toole was unable to find any crime committed by Castaneda, so he charged him with lying during the investigation about whether or not he intended to buy a condo.
In April 2007, the Public Integrity Unit began prosecuting political opponents of Cheryl Cox. Patrick O'Toole, who had previously been appointed as US Attorney for San Diego by Attorney General John Ashcroft, headed the unit.
O'Toole prosecuted a staffer for mayor Steven Padilla who had taken two hours off work in an effort to get a photograph of Cheryl Cox with her disgraced family friend David Malcolm at a twilight yacht party fundraiser for Cox. The staffer was charged with five felony counts of perjury for telling a grand jury that he filled out his leave slip from work before rather than after he took off from his job at the City of Chula Vista. He pled guilty to lesser charges as part of a plea deal.
The now-dormant unit ended its active phase with a second and final prosecution, that of Steve Castaneda, who had run against Cheryl Cox for mayor.
Castaneda was prosecuted for allegedly lying about whether he planned to buy a condo, even though he never bought the condo in question.
According to the San Diego Union Tribune, "Castaneda was a tenant at the complex and was accused of seeking favors, such as free rent, from Sunbow owner Ash Israni, according to the 1,200-page grand jury transcript. The investigation found that Castaneda paid his rent and didn't ask for special treatment. O'Toole told the grand jury the perjury charges are warranted because Castaneda should be held accountable for 'lying about the facts'; even if no crime was uncovered...Castaneda has been vocal about O'Toole's investigations, saying they are politically motivated. He contended that Dumanis conspired with Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox, his political rival in the 2006 mayoral primary."
"DA unit works as quietly as it began"
"Trial and Re-election bid could coincide"
Prosecutor Patrick O'Toole was unable to find any crime committed by Castaneda, so he charged him with lying during the investigation about whether or not he intended to buy a condo.
In April 2007, the Public Integrity Unit began prosecuting political opponents of Cheryl Cox. Patrick O'Toole, who had previously been appointed as US Attorney for San Diego by Attorney General John Ashcroft, headed the unit.
O'Toole prosecuted a staffer for mayor Steven Padilla who had taken two hours off work in an effort to get a photograph of Cheryl Cox with her disgraced family friend David Malcolm at a twilight yacht party fundraiser for Cox. The staffer was charged with five felony counts of perjury for telling a grand jury that he filled out his leave slip from work before rather than after he took off from his job at the City of Chula Vista. He pled guilty to lesser charges as part of a plea deal.
The now-dormant unit ended its active phase with a second and final prosecution, that of Steve Castaneda, who had run against Cheryl Cox for mayor.
Castaneda was prosecuted for allegedly lying about whether he planned to buy a condo, even though he never bought the condo in question.
According to the San Diego Union Tribune, "Castaneda was a tenant at the complex and was accused of seeking favors, such as free rent, from Sunbow owner Ash Israni, according to the 1,200-page grand jury transcript. The investigation found that Castaneda paid his rent and didn't ask for special treatment. O'Toole told the grand jury the perjury charges are warranted because Castaneda should be held accountable for 'lying about the facts'; even if no crime was uncovered...Castaneda has been vocal about O'Toole's investigations, saying they are politically motivated. He contended that Dumanis conspired with Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox, his political rival in the 2006 mayoral primary."
"DA unit works as quietly as it began"
"Trial and Re-election bid could coincide"
Note to Bonnie Dumanis: This is how you conduct an investigation
Today in Finance for April 8, 2008
SEC Charges Five Ex-Officials in San Diego Muni Fraud
Commission Chairman Christopher Cox has cited the city government's scandal as a reason to expand the SEC's regulatory powers over municipal bonds.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11002450/c_10999584?f=home_todayinfinance&x=1
Stephen Taub
CFO.com | US
April 8, 2008
The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil fraud charges against five former San Diego city officials—mostly finance professionals—for their roles in the city’s financial crisis in 2002 and 2003.
The SEC charged the individuals for failing to disclose to investors buying the city’s municipal bonds that there were funding problems with San Diego's pension and retiree health care obligations and those liabilities had put the city in financial peril.
advertisement The five named were former city manager Michael Uberuaga, former city treasurer Mary Vattimo, former auditor an comptroller Edward Ryan, former deputy city manager of finance Patricia Frazier, and former assistant auditor & comptroller Teresa Webster.
"The facts will clearly demonstrate that all city officials and staff members acted with good faith and honest intention with regard to the bond offerings by the city of San Diego," stated Webster's attorney, Frank Vecchione. "At no time did Terri Webster act inappropriately or with intent to deceive any potential investor. The time has come to put the misperceptions and misrepresentations regarding Ms. Webster and these bonds to rest. We intend to do so."
Frazier's attorney could not be reached at presstime. Lawyers for the remaining three former officials did not return phone calls from CFO.com.
In the fraud complaint filed by the SEC on Monday, the commission charges that the five former San Diego officials knew that the city had been intentionally underfunding its pension obligations so that it could increase pension benefits while deferring the costs. The officials were allegedly aware that the city would face severe difficulty funding its future pension and retiree health care obligations unless it raised new revenues or pension and health care benefits or city services were cut.
The SEC alleges the ex-officials knew that the city’s unfunded pension liability was projected to grow dramatically from $284 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 to an estimated $2 billion by 2009 and that the city’s liability for retiree health care was another estimated $1.1 billion. But the officials failed to disclose those and other material facts in bond-offering documents and continuing disclosures, it added.
In a speech, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has cited securities fraud within San Diego's city government in those years as a rationale for extending the commission's regulatory powers over municipal bonds. "While the SEC has anti-fraud authority -- allowing us to come in and clean up messes like [San Diego] after the fact," he said in a July 2007 speech, neither the SEC nor any other federal regulator can compel the municipal bond market to make the same sorts of disclosures that the SEC requires in the corporate securities market. "It's a basic common-sense consumer protection that is way overdue," Cox said at the time, calling for legislation giving the SEC "limited powers" to assure transparency in muni offering.
In its current complaint, the SEC alleges that Uberuaga signed the closing letter for one of the bond offerings, falsely certifying that it was accurate and did not contain any misleading statements. Ryan signed letters falsely representing that the city’s audited financials included in the securities offerings were accurate, the regulator alleged.
The commission also charged that Frazier regularly reviewed and revised the false and misleading disclosure documents and signed the closing letter for two out of a total five bond offerings relevant to the case. She falsely certified the disclosures as accurate and did not contain any misleading statements reviewed and made presentations to the rating agencies, the SEC alleged.
Webster reviewed city financials that contained some of the false and misleading disclosures, the commission charged, alleging that Vattimo took part in drafting the city’s false and misleading disclosures. Vattimo and Webster both allegedly knew that in 2003, the rating agencies had concerns about the city’s growing pension burdens and that those obligations could hurt the city’s credit rating. "Nevertheless, they withheld material facts from the rating agencies," the SEC added.
The SEC previously issued a sanction against San Diego for committing securities fraud by failing to disclose to investors important information about its pension and retiree health care obligations in the sale of its municipal bonds in 2002 and 2003. To settle the action, the city agreed to cease and desist from future securities fraud and to retain an independent consultant for three years to foster compliance with its disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws.
In December 2007, the SEC and the outside auditors for the city and its pension system, Thomas J. Saiz and Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, settled charges against the firm. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, the audit firm consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The firm, which acted as the auditor of the city and the benefits plan, also paid a civil penalty of $15,000.
SEC Charges Five Ex-Officials in San Diego Muni Fraud
Commission Chairman Christopher Cox has cited the city government's scandal as a reason to expand the SEC's regulatory powers over municipal bonds.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11002450/c_10999584?f=home_todayinfinance&x=1
Stephen Taub
CFO.com | US
April 8, 2008
The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil fraud charges against five former San Diego city officials—mostly finance professionals—for their roles in the city’s financial crisis in 2002 and 2003.
The SEC charged the individuals for failing to disclose to investors buying the city’s municipal bonds that there were funding problems with San Diego's pension and retiree health care obligations and those liabilities had put the city in financial peril.
advertisement The five named were former city manager Michael Uberuaga, former city treasurer Mary Vattimo, former auditor an comptroller Edward Ryan, former deputy city manager of finance Patricia Frazier, and former assistant auditor & comptroller Teresa Webster.
"The facts will clearly demonstrate that all city officials and staff members acted with good faith and honest intention with regard to the bond offerings by the city of San Diego," stated Webster's attorney, Frank Vecchione. "At no time did Terri Webster act inappropriately or with intent to deceive any potential investor. The time has come to put the misperceptions and misrepresentations regarding Ms. Webster and these bonds to rest. We intend to do so."
Frazier's attorney could not be reached at presstime. Lawyers for the remaining three former officials did not return phone calls from CFO.com.
In the fraud complaint filed by the SEC on Monday, the commission charges that the five former San Diego officials knew that the city had been intentionally underfunding its pension obligations so that it could increase pension benefits while deferring the costs. The officials were allegedly aware that the city would face severe difficulty funding its future pension and retiree health care obligations unless it raised new revenues or pension and health care benefits or city services were cut.
The SEC alleges the ex-officials knew that the city’s unfunded pension liability was projected to grow dramatically from $284 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 to an estimated $2 billion by 2009 and that the city’s liability for retiree health care was another estimated $1.1 billion. But the officials failed to disclose those and other material facts in bond-offering documents and continuing disclosures, it added.
In a speech, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has cited securities fraud within San Diego's city government in those years as a rationale for extending the commission's regulatory powers over municipal bonds. "While the SEC has anti-fraud authority -- allowing us to come in and clean up messes like [San Diego] after the fact," he said in a July 2007 speech, neither the SEC nor any other federal regulator can compel the municipal bond market to make the same sorts of disclosures that the SEC requires in the corporate securities market. "It's a basic common-sense consumer protection that is way overdue," Cox said at the time, calling for legislation giving the SEC "limited powers" to assure transparency in muni offering.
In its current complaint, the SEC alleges that Uberuaga signed the closing letter for one of the bond offerings, falsely certifying that it was accurate and did not contain any misleading statements. Ryan signed letters falsely representing that the city’s audited financials included in the securities offerings were accurate, the regulator alleged.
The commission also charged that Frazier regularly reviewed and revised the false and misleading disclosure documents and signed the closing letter for two out of a total five bond offerings relevant to the case. She falsely certified the disclosures as accurate and did not contain any misleading statements reviewed and made presentations to the rating agencies, the SEC alleged.
Webster reviewed city financials that contained some of the false and misleading disclosures, the commission charged, alleging that Vattimo took part in drafting the city’s false and misleading disclosures. Vattimo and Webster both allegedly knew that in 2003, the rating agencies had concerns about the city’s growing pension burdens and that those obligations could hurt the city’s credit rating. "Nevertheless, they withheld material facts from the rating agencies," the SEC added.
The SEC previously issued a sanction against San Diego for committing securities fraud by failing to disclose to investors important information about its pension and retiree health care obligations in the sale of its municipal bonds in 2002 and 2003. To settle the action, the city agreed to cease and desist from future securities fraud and to retain an independent consultant for three years to foster compliance with its disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws.
In December 2007, the SEC and the outside auditors for the city and its pension system, Thomas J. Saiz and Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, settled charges against the firm. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, the audit firm consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The firm, which acted as the auditor of the city and the benefits plan, also paid a civil penalty of $15,000.
Monday, March 31, 2008
SEC says mayor should not appoint his own auditor
I agree with the SEC and Frances O'Neill Zimmerman: San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders should not appoint his own auditor.
Zimmerman wrote the following in a letter to Voice of San Diego:
Auditing Mess
By Frances O'Neill Zimmerman, La Jolla
March 31, 2008
"...Voters need to realize that what the SEC calls for will be explicitly undone if voters fall for Proposition C that will appear on our June primary ballot with Mayor Sanders' stamp of approval. The SEC calls for "independent oversight" from an Audit Committee, "an independent and professional internal audit function" and "significant additional staff" to accomplish future on-time reporting to taxpayers and to credit-granting agencies...
"I'd say we can't afford not to have an independent Auditor and Audit Committee and more auditing staff. Nor can we can afford the fox-in-henhouse Proposition C."
Zimmerman wrote the following in a letter to Voice of San Diego:
Auditing Mess
By Frances O'Neill Zimmerman, La Jolla
March 31, 2008
"...Voters need to realize that what the SEC calls for will be explicitly undone if voters fall for Proposition C that will appear on our June primary ballot with Mayor Sanders' stamp of approval. The SEC calls for "independent oversight" from an Audit Committee, "an independent and professional internal audit function" and "significant additional staff" to accomplish future on-time reporting to taxpayers and to credit-granting agencies...
"I'd say we can't afford not to have an independent Auditor and Audit Committee and more auditing staff. Nor can we can afford the fox-in-henhouse Proposition C."
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole
Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole
The New York Times
By STEPHEN LABATON
February 23, 2008
In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.
The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.
At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain denounced an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay. He said he never had any discussions with his advisers about Ms. Iseman and never did any favors for any lobbyist.
One of the McCain campaign’s statements about his dealings with Ms. Iseman was challenged by news accounts on Friday. In discussing letters he wrote regulators about a deal involving another of Ms. Iseman’s clients, Lowell W. Paxson, the campaign had said the senator had never spoken to her or anyone from the company. But Mr. McCain acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had sent the letters after meeting with Mr. Paxson.
On Glencairn, the campaign said Mr. McCain’s efforts to retain the loophole were not done at Ms. Iseman’s request. It said Mr. McCain was merely directing the commission to “not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent.” Mr. McCain wrote in the letters that a 1996 law, the telecommunications act, required the loophole; a legal opinion by the staff of the commission took the opposite view.
A review of the record, including agency records now at the National Archives and interviews with participants, shows that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, played a significant role in killing the plan to eliminate the loophole. His actions followed requests by Ms. Iseman and lobbyists at other broadcasting companies, according to lobbying records and Congressional aides.
Over the years, Mr. McCain has taken varying positions on broadcast ownership issues. He has supported the relaxation of the ownership rules, but he has also been sharply critical of rules that permit too much concentration of ownership in a single market.
By November 1998, the F.C.C. was planning to strike down broadcasting marketing agreements, a potentially ruinous development for Glencairn. But after receiving Mr. McCain’s Dec. 1 letter, it put off consideration of the issue.
“To the extent the F.C.C. shows itself incapable of following Congressional intent,” the letter said, “these issues will become part of our overall review of the commission’s functions and structure during the next session of Congress.”
The letter, sent from Mr. McCain’s office by his staff at the commerce committee, was also signed by Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana and chairman of a communications subcommittee. It was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period.
It was the only letter that contained a suggestion that a failure to act would result in the possible overhaul of the agency.
The letter said that “as a leading participant in the passage of the 1996 Act, I have a very clear understanding” of the law’s intent and why it required the ownership loophole to be preserved. Mr. McCain was one of five senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the act. He has also been an outspoken critic of it.
While other companies also complained to Congress about the plan to close the loophole, the issue was particularly important to Sinclair because it had more marketing agreements than any in the nation. For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.
Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.
“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.”
The campaign said that Mr. McCain never spoke with Ms. Iseman about the issue, but that she did speak to his staff about it. Mr. Edwards and Mr. McCain met on July 20, 1999, according to the campaign.
After the commission postponed consideration of the issue, Mr. McCain signed a second letter to the agency on Dec. 7, 1998, in support of local marketing agreements, and a third one on Feb. 11, 1999. The third letter was signed by four other lawmakers. Ultimately, the F.C.C. loosened the rules to permit a company to own two television stations in some markets.
The letters Mr. McCain wrote to the commission in the Paxson matter were sent in late 1999 and prompted the agency’s chairman to chastise him for interfering in a licensing matter. The incident embarrassed Mr. McCain, then making his first presidential run, because Mr. Paxson was a campaign contributor and fund-raiser.
While the campaign said Thursday that Mr. McCain never spoke to anyone from Paxson or Ms. Iseman’s lobbying firm before sending those letters to the commission, an article posted Friday on Newsweek’s Web site said Mr. McCain had previously acknowledged first speaking to Mr. Paxson. Recounting that conversation, Mr. McCain testified in the deposition, “I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act.”
The Washington Post reported Friday on its Web site that Mr. Paxson acknowledged in an interview that he had met with Mr. McCain to discuss the letters before they were sent and that Ms. Iseman was probably at the meeting.
In three interviews with The Times since December, Mr. Paxson has provided varying accounts about the letters. In the first, he said Ms. Iseman was involved in the drafting of them and had lobbied Mr. McCain. He later said he could not recall who had been involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087%0A
The New York Times
By STEPHEN LABATON
February 23, 2008
In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.
The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.
At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain denounced an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay. He said he never had any discussions with his advisers about Ms. Iseman and never did any favors for any lobbyist.
One of the McCain campaign’s statements about his dealings with Ms. Iseman was challenged by news accounts on Friday. In discussing letters he wrote regulators about a deal involving another of Ms. Iseman’s clients, Lowell W. Paxson, the campaign had said the senator had never spoken to her or anyone from the company. But Mr. McCain acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had sent the letters after meeting with Mr. Paxson.
On Glencairn, the campaign said Mr. McCain’s efforts to retain the loophole were not done at Ms. Iseman’s request. It said Mr. McCain was merely directing the commission to “not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent.” Mr. McCain wrote in the letters that a 1996 law, the telecommunications act, required the loophole; a legal opinion by the staff of the commission took the opposite view.
A review of the record, including agency records now at the National Archives and interviews with participants, shows that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, played a significant role in killing the plan to eliminate the loophole. His actions followed requests by Ms. Iseman and lobbyists at other broadcasting companies, according to lobbying records and Congressional aides.
Over the years, Mr. McCain has taken varying positions on broadcast ownership issues. He has supported the relaxation of the ownership rules, but he has also been sharply critical of rules that permit too much concentration of ownership in a single market.
By November 1998, the F.C.C. was planning to strike down broadcasting marketing agreements, a potentially ruinous development for Glencairn. But after receiving Mr. McCain’s Dec. 1 letter, it put off consideration of the issue.
“To the extent the F.C.C. shows itself incapable of following Congressional intent,” the letter said, “these issues will become part of our overall review of the commission’s functions and structure during the next session of Congress.”
The letter, sent from Mr. McCain’s office by his staff at the commerce committee, was also signed by Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana and chairman of a communications subcommittee. It was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period.
It was the only letter that contained a suggestion that a failure to act would result in the possible overhaul of the agency.
The letter said that “as a leading participant in the passage of the 1996 Act, I have a very clear understanding” of the law’s intent and why it required the ownership loophole to be preserved. Mr. McCain was one of five senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the act. He has also been an outspoken critic of it.
While other companies also complained to Congress about the plan to close the loophole, the issue was particularly important to Sinclair because it had more marketing agreements than any in the nation. For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.
Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.
“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.”
The campaign said that Mr. McCain never spoke with Ms. Iseman about the issue, but that she did speak to his staff about it. Mr. Edwards and Mr. McCain met on July 20, 1999, according to the campaign.
After the commission postponed consideration of the issue, Mr. McCain signed a second letter to the agency on Dec. 7, 1998, in support of local marketing agreements, and a third one on Feb. 11, 1999. The third letter was signed by four other lawmakers. Ultimately, the F.C.C. loosened the rules to permit a company to own two television stations in some markets.
The letters Mr. McCain wrote to the commission in the Paxson matter were sent in late 1999 and prompted the agency’s chairman to chastise him for interfering in a licensing matter. The incident embarrassed Mr. McCain, then making his first presidential run, because Mr. Paxson was a campaign contributor and fund-raiser.
While the campaign said Thursday that Mr. McCain never spoke to anyone from Paxson or Ms. Iseman’s lobbying firm before sending those letters to the commission, an article posted Friday on Newsweek’s Web site said Mr. McCain had previously acknowledged first speaking to Mr. Paxson. Recounting that conversation, Mr. McCain testified in the deposition, “I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act.”
The Washington Post reported Friday on its Web site that Mr. Paxson acknowledged in an interview that he had met with Mr. McCain to discuss the letters before they were sent and that Ms. Iseman was probably at the meeting.
In three interviews with The Times since December, Mr. Paxson has provided varying accounts about the letters. In the first, he said Ms. Iseman was involved in the drafting of them and had lobbied Mr. McCain. He later said he could not recall who had been involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087%0A
Jerry Sanders wants to appoint the person who will audit his books
From Pat Flannery's Bog of San Diego:
"Sanders' power-grab at appointing the City's Internal Auditor (the very person who will audit his books) will be decided by the City Council on Monday...
"Peters and Sanders want option (2): "appointed by the City Manager [now the Mayor], in consultation with the Audit Committee, and confirmed by the Council". Donna Frye will continue to oppose the Mayor having any role in appointing the City Auditor. She has consistently pointed out that it is wrong both in substance and appearance and a giant step backwards for this wayward City..."
http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
"Sanders' power-grab at appointing the City's Internal Auditor (the very person who will audit his books) will be decided by the City Council on Monday...
"Peters and Sanders want option (2): "appointed by the City Manager [now the Mayor], in consultation with the Audit Committee, and confirmed by the Council". Donna Frye will continue to oppose the Mayor having any role in appointing the City Auditor. She has consistently pointed out that it is wrong both in substance and appearance and a giant step backwards for this wayward City..."
http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
Friday, February 22, 2008
Dysfunction follows city council killings in Kirkwood, Missouri
I don't know if dysfunction preceded the city council killings in Kirkwood, Missouri, but it certainly is occurring in the wake of those killings. I have to agree with citizens who want more than one name on their ballots for the upcoming mayoral election. A candidate who died was removed from the ballot, but her supporters want to be able to indicate their dissatisfaction with the one person named on the ballot.
The city attorney says the election can't be delayed. Okay, let me get this straight. Having one name on the ballot is okay, even though it eliminates democracy, but delaying an election isn't okay?
The spirit of the law is to bring about democracy. That's what the rules are for. When the rules start bringing about the opposite of democracy, it's time to come up with an equitable solution to the problem.
It appears that this city council doesn't know how to come up with equitable solutions. And it certainly shouldn't be blaming the dead woman's husband for it's decision. There's no law that says you have to do what surviving spouses want. I wonder if the bereaved man was pressured to agree to taking his wife's name off the ballot.
Here's an Associated Press article:
First City Meeting Since Killings Gets Ugly
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD
Associated Press
2008-02-22
KIRKWOOD, Mo.
The first City Council meeting since a gunman stormed City Hall and killed five people began with a sense of togetherness that didn't last long.
Residents and elected officials of Kirkwood, Mo., came together Thursday for the first City Council meeting since a gunman stormed City Hall two weeks ago, killing five people and wounding two others. Here, locals Lorraine Brown and Franklin McCallie greet each other with a hug before the meeting, which did not continue as amicably.
After opening with a moment of silence to remember the rampage two weeks ago, the meeting turned into a bitter fight over the how the St. Louis suburb will move on now that three city officials are dead and the mayor is incapacitated.
Police say 52-year-old Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton entered the council chambers on Feb. 7 and killed two police officers, two council members and the city's public works director before police shot him to death. Mayor Mike Swoboda was shot twice in the head and remains hospitalized.
Among the dead was Connie Karr, an alderwoman who was running for mayor. Last week the city had her name removed from the ballot, leaving only alderman Arthur McDonnell listed.
Dozens attended Thursday's meeting to criticize the move, saying it undercut the voters' right to choose their mayor in the April election.
"I feel that with only one candidate, you're not going to have any discussion or debate," Kirkwood resident Karl Unsworth said.
Spectators booed and groaned during a long and disorderly public comment period; some yelled at city officials as they spoke.
State Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, a Republican from Kirkwood, took his turn at the microphone to hold a moment of silence after particularly heated comments. He then led a prayer.
"God, I would ask that the people of Kirkwood learn how to address the struggles and challenges that we face," he said.
City Attorney John Hessel explained repeatedly that Karr's name was removed from the ballot at her husband's request. He said it was impossible under city and state law to delay the vote, except if a disaster occurred on the day of the election.
Hessel criticized many of the speakers who questioned his legal rationale and suggested he wasn't honoring Karr's legacy. He survived the shooting attack only after throwing chairs at Thornton to fend him off before police arrived.
"Connie Karr's death is all of our worst nightmare," Hessel said. "It is something that I live over and over."
Besides Karr, killed in the rampage were Officer William Biggs Jr., Officer Tom Ballman, Public Works Director Ken Yost and Councilman Michael H.T. Lynch.
Thornton had a long history of fighting with city officials over a litany of code violations, fines and citations.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/first-city-meeting-since-killings-gets/20080222085109990001?ncid=NWS0001000000000
The city attorney says the election can't be delayed. Okay, let me get this straight. Having one name on the ballot is okay, even though it eliminates democracy, but delaying an election isn't okay?
The spirit of the law is to bring about democracy. That's what the rules are for. When the rules start bringing about the opposite of democracy, it's time to come up with an equitable solution to the problem.
It appears that this city council doesn't know how to come up with equitable solutions. And it certainly shouldn't be blaming the dead woman's husband for it's decision. There's no law that says you have to do what surviving spouses want. I wonder if the bereaved man was pressured to agree to taking his wife's name off the ballot.
Here's an Associated Press article:
First City Meeting Since Killings Gets Ugly
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD
Associated Press
2008-02-22
KIRKWOOD, Mo.
The first City Council meeting since a gunman stormed City Hall and killed five people began with a sense of togetherness that didn't last long.
Residents and elected officials of Kirkwood, Mo., came together Thursday for the first City Council meeting since a gunman stormed City Hall two weeks ago, killing five people and wounding two others. Here, locals Lorraine Brown and Franklin McCallie greet each other with a hug before the meeting, which did not continue as amicably.
After opening with a moment of silence to remember the rampage two weeks ago, the meeting turned into a bitter fight over the how the St. Louis suburb will move on now that three city officials are dead and the mayor is incapacitated.
Police say 52-year-old Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton entered the council chambers on Feb. 7 and killed two police officers, two council members and the city's public works director before police shot him to death. Mayor Mike Swoboda was shot twice in the head and remains hospitalized.
Among the dead was Connie Karr, an alderwoman who was running for mayor. Last week the city had her name removed from the ballot, leaving only alderman Arthur McDonnell listed.
Dozens attended Thursday's meeting to criticize the move, saying it undercut the voters' right to choose their mayor in the April election.
"I feel that with only one candidate, you're not going to have any discussion or debate," Kirkwood resident Karl Unsworth said.
Spectators booed and groaned during a long and disorderly public comment period; some yelled at city officials as they spoke.
State Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, a Republican from Kirkwood, took his turn at the microphone to hold a moment of silence after particularly heated comments. He then led a prayer.
"God, I would ask that the people of Kirkwood learn how to address the struggles and challenges that we face," he said.
City Attorney John Hessel explained repeatedly that Karr's name was removed from the ballot at her husband's request. He said it was impossible under city and state law to delay the vote, except if a disaster occurred on the day of the election.
Hessel criticized many of the speakers who questioned his legal rationale and suggested he wasn't honoring Karr's legacy. He survived the shooting attack only after throwing chairs at Thornton to fend him off before police arrived.
"Connie Karr's death is all of our worst nightmare," Hessel said. "It is something that I live over and over."
Besides Karr, killed in the rampage were Officer William Biggs Jr., Officer Tom Ballman, Public Works Director Ken Yost and Councilman Michael H.T. Lynch.
Thornton had a long history of fighting with city officials over a litany of code violations, fines and citations.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/first-city-meeting-since-killings-gets/20080222085109990001?ncid=NWS0001000000000
It isn't just San Diego; Arizona Congressman took kickbacks
Feds Indict Congressman in Land Deal
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press
Feb. 22, 2008
Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.
Rep. Rick Renzi, a three-term member of the House, also served as Arizona chairman for GOP presidential front-runner John McCain's campaign.
A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Tucson, Ariz., accuses Renzi and two former business partners of embezzlement and conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government.
Renzi is a three-term member of the House. He announced in August that he would not seek re-election. Attempts to reach Renzi by phone on Friday through his congressional office in Flagstaff and his lawyer were unsuccessful.
The indictment accuses Renzi of using his position as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee to push the land swaps for business partner James W. Sandlin, a real estate investor from Sherman, Texas. It comes after a lengthy federal investigation into the land development and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.
As part of the alleged scam, Renzi and Sandlin concealed at least $733,000 that the congressman took for helping seal the land deals, the indictment says. They are each charged with 27 counts of wire fraud, extortion and money laundering, and conspiracy connected to the scam in Cochise County, Ariz.
"Renzi was having financial difficulty throughout 2005 and needed a substantial infusion of funds to keep his insurance business solvent and to maintain his personal lifestyle," the indictment says.
Additionally, Renzi and his second business partner, Andrew Beardall of Rockville, Md., allegedly embezzled more than $400,000 in insurance premiums in 2001 and 2002 to fund his first congressional campaign, according to the indictment.
All three men are scheduled to appear in federal court in Tucson on March 6.
"Public corruption creates a cynicism for government and unfairly stains legions of honest public servants," Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said in a statement. "These charges represent allegations that Congressman Renzi defrauded the public of his unbiased, honest services as an elected official."
Renzi is the Arizona chairman for GOP presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain's campaign. McCain seemed surprised when asked in Indianapolis for his reaction to the indictment, choosing his words carefully, shaking his head and speaking slowly.
"I'm sorry. I feel for the family; as you know, he has 12 children," McCain told reporters on the presidential campaign trail. "But I don't know enough of the details to make a judgment. These kinds of things are always very unfortunate.... I rely on our Department of Justice and system of justice to make the right outcome."
The land swap deal has dogged Renzi more than a year.
The indictment says Renzi refused in 2005 and 2006 to secure congressional approval for land swaps by two unnamed businesses if they did not agree to buy Sandlin's property as a part of the deal.
One of the businesses, seeking congressional approval for surface rights for a copper mining project in Renzi's district, failed to buy the land in early 2005. As a result, Renzi allegedly told the business, "No Sandlin property, no bill."
Renzi had previously owned some of Sandlin's property, and concealed his relationship with the real estate investor from the mining company even when expressly asked. At the time, Sandlin owed $700,000 of the $800,000 price tag on property Renzi sold him in Kingman, Ariz.
Meanwhile, Renzi allegedly pushed the land on a second firm, an unnamed investment group, that was trying to secure a federal land swap. If the firm accepted Sandlin's property as part of the transaction, Renzi allegedly said investors would receive a "free pass" through the House Natural Resources Committee, according to the indictment.
In April 2005, the investors reluctantly agreed to the deal.
"Please be sensitive to the fact that we are going way out on a limb at the request of Congressman Renzi," one of the investors wrote in an April 17, 2005 e-mail to a Renzi aide. "I am putting my complete faith in Congressman Renzi and you that this is the correct decision."
The investment group agreed to pay $4.6 million for Sandlin's land, the indictment says. Sandlin then paid Renzi $733,000 for his help in securing the land swap from the second business.
Renzi failed to report the income on financial disclosure reports to Congress, as is required.
Government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington applauded the Justice Department for holding Renzi "accountable given that his House colleagues refused to do so." The group has had Renzi on its "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" list for the last three years.
"Bluster aside, this latest in a string of congressional indictments demonstrates that Congress simply will not police itself," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/feds-indict-congressman-in-land-deal/20080222104609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press
Feb. 22, 2008
Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.
Rep. Rick Renzi, a three-term member of the House, also served as Arizona chairman for GOP presidential front-runner John McCain's campaign.
A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Tucson, Ariz., accuses Renzi and two former business partners of embezzlement and conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government.
Renzi is a three-term member of the House. He announced in August that he would not seek re-election. Attempts to reach Renzi by phone on Friday through his congressional office in Flagstaff and his lawyer were unsuccessful.
The indictment accuses Renzi of using his position as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee to push the land swaps for business partner James W. Sandlin, a real estate investor from Sherman, Texas. It comes after a lengthy federal investigation into the land development and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.
As part of the alleged scam, Renzi and Sandlin concealed at least $733,000 that the congressman took for helping seal the land deals, the indictment says. They are each charged with 27 counts of wire fraud, extortion and money laundering, and conspiracy connected to the scam in Cochise County, Ariz.
"Renzi was having financial difficulty throughout 2005 and needed a substantial infusion of funds to keep his insurance business solvent and to maintain his personal lifestyle," the indictment says.
Additionally, Renzi and his second business partner, Andrew Beardall of Rockville, Md., allegedly embezzled more than $400,000 in insurance premiums in 2001 and 2002 to fund his first congressional campaign, according to the indictment.
All three men are scheduled to appear in federal court in Tucson on March 6.
"Public corruption creates a cynicism for government and unfairly stains legions of honest public servants," Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said in a statement. "These charges represent allegations that Congressman Renzi defrauded the public of his unbiased, honest services as an elected official."
Renzi is the Arizona chairman for GOP presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain's campaign. McCain seemed surprised when asked in Indianapolis for his reaction to the indictment, choosing his words carefully, shaking his head and speaking slowly.
"I'm sorry. I feel for the family; as you know, he has 12 children," McCain told reporters on the presidential campaign trail. "But I don't know enough of the details to make a judgment. These kinds of things are always very unfortunate.... I rely on our Department of Justice and system of justice to make the right outcome."
The land swap deal has dogged Renzi more than a year.
The indictment says Renzi refused in 2005 and 2006 to secure congressional approval for land swaps by two unnamed businesses if they did not agree to buy Sandlin's property as a part of the deal.
One of the businesses, seeking congressional approval for surface rights for a copper mining project in Renzi's district, failed to buy the land in early 2005. As a result, Renzi allegedly told the business, "No Sandlin property, no bill."
Renzi had previously owned some of Sandlin's property, and concealed his relationship with the real estate investor from the mining company even when expressly asked. At the time, Sandlin owed $700,000 of the $800,000 price tag on property Renzi sold him in Kingman, Ariz.
Meanwhile, Renzi allegedly pushed the land on a second firm, an unnamed investment group, that was trying to secure a federal land swap. If the firm accepted Sandlin's property as part of the transaction, Renzi allegedly said investors would receive a "free pass" through the House Natural Resources Committee, according to the indictment.
In April 2005, the investors reluctantly agreed to the deal.
"Please be sensitive to the fact that we are going way out on a limb at the request of Congressman Renzi," one of the investors wrote in an April 17, 2005 e-mail to a Renzi aide. "I am putting my complete faith in Congressman Renzi and you that this is the correct decision."
The investment group agreed to pay $4.6 million for Sandlin's land, the indictment says. Sandlin then paid Renzi $733,000 for his help in securing the land swap from the second business.
Renzi failed to report the income on financial disclosure reports to Congress, as is required.
Government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington applauded the Justice Department for holding Renzi "accountable given that his House colleagues refused to do so." The group has had Renzi on its "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" list for the last three years.
"Bluster aside, this latest in a string of congressional indictments demonstrates that Congress simply will not police itself," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/feds-indict-congressman-in-land-deal/20080222104609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Scott Lewis explains the Mike Aguirre-City Council-pension lawsuit connection
From Voice of San Diego
by Scott Lewis
Having It Both Ways
http://voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/
A reader, who is an attorney, wrote me an e-mail about the revived ambiguity surrounding the 2005 vote (or non-vote) the City Council supposedly took to authorize City Attorney Mike Aguirre's legacy lawsuit to roll back city employee pension benefits.
Remember yesterday's reminder of what Council President Scott Peters argues: that Aguirre only received authorization to sue in his own name.
Here's the attorney:
I too have always been confused on how that went down. I'm not sure what it means to authorize Aguirre to sue in his own name? He's the City Attorney for crying out loud! Did they mean he could sue as an individual? In that case, he really didn't need their permission.
What also always irritated was that if the Council felt like their position on this was misunderstood and they really did not want him to file the suit, why did they not revote and clarify their position at the next Council meeting or anytime thereafter??? Don't get me wrong I absolutely believe the City Attorney can not file this type of lawsuit without Council approval. I just thought they left him an out with their ambiguity and never clarified as they most certainly could have.
This is a vitally important point. If the City Council never authorized Aguirre to sue to roll back what he claimed were illegal pension benefits, why in the world did they never do a single thing about it?
This may be why the issue is coming up now. One of the big arguments Peters and the gang looking to throw Aguirre out of office will undoubtedly use is the meme that Aguirre has been a reckless litigator.
If he has been a reckless litigator, his most reckless litigation is the pension lawsuit. But how can Peters (and his colleague Brian Maienschein) possibly argue that this was as reckless as they say if they authorized him to file the lawsuit?
The State Bar, by investigating this, is enabling Peters and Maienschein to float the idea that they never did authorize the litigation.
It should be remembered, of course, that they never did anything to stop it either.
But regardless, this can all be cleared up if the City Council would release the transcript of what really happened at that meeting. But they decided only to give the transcript to the State Bar.
How convenient.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
Wednesday, February 20 -- 3:02 pm
Click here to post comments (3 posted so far)
The Meeting in Question
E-MAIL POST
In light of today's U-T report on the State Bar investigation into City Attorney Mike Aguirre, I'm having flashbacks of a series of columns I did in 2005 about the meeting that is apparently at the center of the Bar's probe.
Flashback with me: Watching a City Council meeting in August of that year, I was shocked to see then Assistant City Attorney Les Girard quietly announce that the City Council had authorized City Attorney Mike Aguirre to sue to get rid of pension benefits he thought city employees had illegally secured.
It was a stunner. I rewound the tape a couple of times to make sure I understood him because the City Council had, until that point, never been too enthusiastic about Aguirre's expressed desire to completely roll back benefit enhancements city employees had secured in the 90s and in 2002.
So I called Aguirre to confirm and wrote up what I thought was big news.
Don "The Rat" McGrath today tries to explain the city attorney's side.
It suddenly got the attention of both union leaders and a blogger named Pat Flannery neither of whom completely believed me until they too saw the tapes. When Ann Smith, the lawyer for the city's Municipal Employee Association heard about it, she wanted to know what was going on as well and sent a letter to the City Council asking.
I wrote up a followup after asking a couple of City Council members.
On Aug. 9 just before the City Council broke its meeting to go to lunch (at 1 hour, 43 minutes into the archived video on the city's Web site -- for the really interested), Assistant City Attorney Les Girard made this announcement:
"Last week in closed session, by a unanimous vote, the City Council authorized the city attorney to pursue a modified cross complaint in the action of SDCERS v. the city of San Diego and City Attorney Michael Aguirre."
Heck, it's my blog, I'm just going to reprint the best part of the column here:
In an interview Aug. 12, Aguirre said that the council had "joined the city attorney" in his legal pursuits against the pension board on the condition that he drop his contention that individuals named in the suit be held personally liable for their actions. That was how the complaint was "modified," Aguirre said.
"This is an area where the City Council has chosen to support the city attorney," he said.
He reaffirmed his statements last week.
But relations among the city leaders have apparently deteriorated so badly that they can't even agree on what official actions they have taken.
Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins released a one-line reaction.
"The Council took no action nor a position on benefits being legal or illegal nor allowing the City Attorney to be counsel for the [San Diego City Employees' Retirement System] board," Atkins said.
Since it's the only statement we have from her on this, we have to take each word for what its worth.
Let's see that again: "The Council took no action nor a position on benefits being legal or illegal."
So what did they do? Why did Les Girard announce in an open council session that "the City Council authorized the city attorney to pursue a modified cross complaint ..."
Is that not an "action"?
Atkins' colleague, Councilman Scott Peters, acknowledges that the council took an action, just not an action with the impact Aguirre describes.
Here's Peters' take.
"...the City Council has authorized the city attorney to allege illegality in his name only," Peters wrote (emphasis added) in a memorandum to Aguirre disputing language Aguirre uses in court documents.
Peters made his case to Voice of San Diego Thursday.
"No one has signed on to his view that the benefits are illegal. He has been authorized to make that argument in his own name but not on behalf of the City Council or the City of San Diego," Peters said. "I would never have voted to authorize him to litigate this illegality issue if the retirement board hadn't brought it up."
Peters said the authorization the council granted Aguirre "in no way" signifies official City Council support for Aguirre's legal maneuver.
Isn't it, however, a bit more supportive than, say, not authorizing him?
Peters explained that, in this instance, it's the retirement board's fault. The pension system, in July, filed a complaint asking a judge to determine if -- in light of Aguirre's blistering investigative reports -- benefits it was paying out were illegal or not.
The pension board had also filed a lawsuit against Aguirre after he tried to take over the attorney chair at the agency.
Now, fast forward two-and-a-half years and the state bar apparently is suspicious of whether the City Council actually did give Aguirre authorization to do the lawsuit or not. And that, we're all assuming, must be something the Bar has a serious problem with. The Bar, according to the U-T's Alex Roth, has asked for a transcript of the secret meeting Girard had referred.
Let's just say that if the City Council does waive the right to keep that transcript private, I will be the first in line to get a copy. It never was entirely clear what the City Council authorized and didn’t.
But I'll repeat this one point I've been making for a couple of years now: Aguirre always argued that he didn't need the City Council to approve his litigious actions yet in times like this, he sought and trumpeted their approval. If he didn't need their approval and really believed that, he probably would never have sought it.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
Tuesday, February 19 -- 1:07 pm
by Scott Lewis
Having It Both Ways
http://voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/
A reader, who is an attorney, wrote me an e-mail about the revived ambiguity surrounding the 2005 vote (or non-vote) the City Council supposedly took to authorize City Attorney Mike Aguirre's legacy lawsuit to roll back city employee pension benefits.
Remember yesterday's reminder of what Council President Scott Peters argues: that Aguirre only received authorization to sue in his own name.
Here's the attorney:
I too have always been confused on how that went down. I'm not sure what it means to authorize Aguirre to sue in his own name? He's the City Attorney for crying out loud! Did they mean he could sue as an individual? In that case, he really didn't need their permission.
What also always irritated was that if the Council felt like their position on this was misunderstood and they really did not want him to file the suit, why did they not revote and clarify their position at the next Council meeting or anytime thereafter??? Don't get me wrong I absolutely believe the City Attorney can not file this type of lawsuit without Council approval. I just thought they left him an out with their ambiguity and never clarified as they most certainly could have.
This is a vitally important point. If the City Council never authorized Aguirre to sue to roll back what he claimed were illegal pension benefits, why in the world did they never do a single thing about it?
This may be why the issue is coming up now. One of the big arguments Peters and the gang looking to throw Aguirre out of office will undoubtedly use is the meme that Aguirre has been a reckless litigator.
If he has been a reckless litigator, his most reckless litigation is the pension lawsuit. But how can Peters (and his colleague Brian Maienschein) possibly argue that this was as reckless as they say if they authorized him to file the lawsuit?
The State Bar, by investigating this, is enabling Peters and Maienschein to float the idea that they never did authorize the litigation.
It should be remembered, of course, that they never did anything to stop it either.
But regardless, this can all be cleared up if the City Council would release the transcript of what really happened at that meeting. But they decided only to give the transcript to the State Bar.
How convenient.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
Wednesday, February 20 -- 3:02 pm
Click here to post comments (3 posted so far)
The Meeting in Question
E-MAIL POST
In light of today's U-T report on the State Bar investigation into City Attorney Mike Aguirre, I'm having flashbacks of a series of columns I did in 2005 about the meeting that is apparently at the center of the Bar's probe.
Flashback with me: Watching a City Council meeting in August of that year, I was shocked to see then Assistant City Attorney Les Girard quietly announce that the City Council had authorized City Attorney Mike Aguirre to sue to get rid of pension benefits he thought city employees had illegally secured.
It was a stunner. I rewound the tape a couple of times to make sure I understood him because the City Council had, until that point, never been too enthusiastic about Aguirre's expressed desire to completely roll back benefit enhancements city employees had secured in the 90s and in 2002.
So I called Aguirre to confirm and wrote up what I thought was big news.
Don "The Rat" McGrath today tries to explain the city attorney's side.
It suddenly got the attention of both union leaders and a blogger named Pat Flannery neither of whom completely believed me until they too saw the tapes. When Ann Smith, the lawyer for the city's Municipal Employee Association heard about it, she wanted to know what was going on as well and sent a letter to the City Council asking.
I wrote up a followup after asking a couple of City Council members.
On Aug. 9 just before the City Council broke its meeting to go to lunch (at 1 hour, 43 minutes into the archived video on the city's Web site -- for the really interested), Assistant City Attorney Les Girard made this announcement:
"Last week in closed session, by a unanimous vote, the City Council authorized the city attorney to pursue a modified cross complaint in the action of SDCERS v. the city of San Diego and City Attorney Michael Aguirre."
Heck, it's my blog, I'm just going to reprint the best part of the column here:
In an interview Aug. 12, Aguirre said that the council had "joined the city attorney" in his legal pursuits against the pension board on the condition that he drop his contention that individuals named in the suit be held personally liable for their actions. That was how the complaint was "modified," Aguirre said.
"This is an area where the City Council has chosen to support the city attorney," he said.
He reaffirmed his statements last week.
But relations among the city leaders have apparently deteriorated so badly that they can't even agree on what official actions they have taken.
Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins released a one-line reaction.
"The Council took no action nor a position on benefits being legal or illegal nor allowing the City Attorney to be counsel for the [San Diego City Employees' Retirement System] board," Atkins said.
Since it's the only statement we have from her on this, we have to take each word for what its worth.
Let's see that again: "The Council took no action nor a position on benefits being legal or illegal."
So what did they do? Why did Les Girard announce in an open council session that "the City Council authorized the city attorney to pursue a modified cross complaint ..."
Is that not an "action"?
Atkins' colleague, Councilman Scott Peters, acknowledges that the council took an action, just not an action with the impact Aguirre describes.
Here's Peters' take.
"...the City Council has authorized the city attorney to allege illegality in his name only," Peters wrote (emphasis added) in a memorandum to Aguirre disputing language Aguirre uses in court documents.
Peters made his case to Voice of San Diego Thursday.
"No one has signed on to his view that the benefits are illegal. He has been authorized to make that argument in his own name but not on behalf of the City Council or the City of San Diego," Peters said. "I would never have voted to authorize him to litigate this illegality issue if the retirement board hadn't brought it up."
Peters said the authorization the council granted Aguirre "in no way" signifies official City Council support for Aguirre's legal maneuver.
Isn't it, however, a bit more supportive than, say, not authorizing him?
Peters explained that, in this instance, it's the retirement board's fault. The pension system, in July, filed a complaint asking a judge to determine if -- in light of Aguirre's blistering investigative reports -- benefits it was paying out were illegal or not.
The pension board had also filed a lawsuit against Aguirre after he tried to take over the attorney chair at the agency.
Now, fast forward two-and-a-half years and the state bar apparently is suspicious of whether the City Council actually did give Aguirre authorization to do the lawsuit or not. And that, we're all assuming, must be something the Bar has a serious problem with. The Bar, according to the U-T's Alex Roth, has asked for a transcript of the secret meeting Girard had referred.
Let's just say that if the City Council does waive the right to keep that transcript private, I will be the first in line to get a copy. It never was entirely clear what the City Council authorized and didn’t.
But I'll repeat this one point I've been making for a couple of years now: Aguirre always argued that he didn't need the City Council to approve his litigious actions yet in times like this, he sought and trumpeted their approval. If he didn't need their approval and really believed that, he probably would never have sought it.
-- SCOTT LEWIS
Tuesday, February 19 -- 1:07 pm
Monday, February 04, 2008
Ann Smith said San Diego had to pay when it was a billion in debt, now she says city has to pay even more
After Metropolitan Employees Association (MEA) lawyer Ann Smith helped finagle a deal (that the SEC says was illegal) with the City of San Diego, she insisted that San Diego had to stick with the deal even though it put the city a billion dollars into the red and was illegal.
Now she says that the city's health care payments have gone down, so the city should pass on the savings.
Pass on the savings, but not the losses, eh, Ann?
Ann Smith clearly doesn't care if her union bankrupts the city.
Now she says that the city's health care payments have gone down, so the city should pass on the savings.
Pass on the savings, but not the losses, eh, Ann?
Ann Smith clearly doesn't care if her union bankrupts the city.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Jan Goldsmith, conspiracy theorist and City Attorney candidate
Deferring to the Conspiracy
By Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Jan. 31, 2008
Click HERE for original article.
Of the complaints that San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre must parry or absorb in coming months if he is to keep his job, the most damaging is clearly that the man has no motor control of his accusation muscle...
So it was with a bit of surprise last week that I learned that Aguirre's most prominent declared rival to his seat might have a similar proclivity toward the unsubstantiated accusation.
Former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith, the chosen one of the local Republican Party, got himself all fired up about the surprising news that City Councilman Brian Maienschein, a fellow Republican with much the same base of support, was entering the race...
It was really Maienschein's money that so upset Goldsmith.
The city councilman had the good fortune to run for re-election to his post in 2004 against no one in particular. People like giving money to politicians and so, like most incumbents, he was able to raise a ton of money for the non-existent race. That money -- $250,000 -- sits now waiting for Maienschein's call.
The city had, in 2004, passed a law that prohibited people from raising money to run for office more than a year before the election for the office they aspired to occupy.
...the director of the Ethics Commission responded to my inquiry about it with a statement that the law seemed pretty clear that money from previous campaigns could be transferred into new ones.
That Maienschein could use that money in the race for city attorney infuriated Goldsmith. And with that came the conspiracy theory and the accusation.
"I would request that the Ethics Commission be fair and impartial in addressing this issue. The appearance is that the Commission is stretching to find ways to allow an incumbent Councilman to do something that is unavailable to other candidates," Goldsmith wrote to Fulhorst and then sent to me.
I had a chance to ask Goldsmith about this.
He was accusing the Ethics Commission of working in collusion with Maienschein to further his political goals. Is this a window into the future? Would he, as city attorney, also defer to the conspiracy theory to make his points?
He said he never wrote that it was an actual conspiracy.
It just looked that way...
And then he got to the other angle about this that bothered him. How had this potential wrinkle in the election law not been ironed out before? This offered Goldsmith another justification for his candidacy -- he could spot things like this.
The City Council didn't know what it was doing passing the law... about the 12-month limit for raising funds.
"Why didn't anyone, in 2004 when this was passed, not ask the question that this doesn't provide an exception or clarity about transfers for money from previous campaigns? There were three lawyers on the council and they couldn't see this?" Goldsmith asked.
He said had he been city attorney, he would have made sure to tie that loose end.
What he didn't realize is that the issue had in fact been brought up. Not by a lawyer on the council, but by the only person who at times seems to be able to ask questions like one: City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Former City Attorney Casey Gwinn actually issued an opinion about the matter.
Could the city keep people like Maienschein from transferring money from a previous campaign to a new one?
Nope, Gwinn's deputy determined...
By Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Jan. 31, 2008
Click HERE for original article.
Of the complaints that San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre must parry or absorb in coming months if he is to keep his job, the most damaging is clearly that the man has no motor control of his accusation muscle...
So it was with a bit of surprise last week that I learned that Aguirre's most prominent declared rival to his seat might have a similar proclivity toward the unsubstantiated accusation.
Former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith, the chosen one of the local Republican Party, got himself all fired up about the surprising news that City Councilman Brian Maienschein, a fellow Republican with much the same base of support, was entering the race...
It was really Maienschein's money that so upset Goldsmith.
The city councilman had the good fortune to run for re-election to his post in 2004 against no one in particular. People like giving money to politicians and so, like most incumbents, he was able to raise a ton of money for the non-existent race. That money -- $250,000 -- sits now waiting for Maienschein's call.
The city had, in 2004, passed a law that prohibited people from raising money to run for office more than a year before the election for the office they aspired to occupy.
...the director of the Ethics Commission responded to my inquiry about it with a statement that the law seemed pretty clear that money from previous campaigns could be transferred into new ones.
That Maienschein could use that money in the race for city attorney infuriated Goldsmith. And with that came the conspiracy theory and the accusation.
"I would request that the Ethics Commission be fair and impartial in addressing this issue. The appearance is that the Commission is stretching to find ways to allow an incumbent Councilman to do something that is unavailable to other candidates," Goldsmith wrote to Fulhorst and then sent to me.
I had a chance to ask Goldsmith about this.
He was accusing the Ethics Commission of working in collusion with Maienschein to further his political goals. Is this a window into the future? Would he, as city attorney, also defer to the conspiracy theory to make his points?
He said he never wrote that it was an actual conspiracy.
It just looked that way...
And then he got to the other angle about this that bothered him. How had this potential wrinkle in the election law not been ironed out before? This offered Goldsmith another justification for his candidacy -- he could spot things like this.
The City Council didn't know what it was doing passing the law... about the 12-month limit for raising funds.
"Why didn't anyone, in 2004 when this was passed, not ask the question that this doesn't provide an exception or clarity about transfers for money from previous campaigns? There were three lawyers on the council and they couldn't see this?" Goldsmith asked.
He said had he been city attorney, he would have made sure to tie that loose end.
What he didn't realize is that the issue had in fact been brought up. Not by a lawyer on the council, but by the only person who at times seems to be able to ask questions like one: City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Former City Attorney Casey Gwinn actually issued an opinion about the matter.
Could the city keep people like Maienschein from transferring money from a previous campaign to a new one?
Nope, Gwinn's deputy determined...
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 »
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)