voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... A Bomb in His Lap
an independent nonprofit |
We depend on your donations. Consider joining us today.

A Bomb in His Lap

Published: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:56 AM PDT



In 2004, I was speaking on the phone with then-candidate Mike Aguirre. He was making a point about something going on in the city and he referred, like he always does, to the city charter. He stopped and asked if I had a copy with me of the charter. He said it held the key to everything. It adds perspective and guidance to all city issues.

I said no, I didn't have a hard copy. After all, I could look it up online. He said I should go to the City Clerk's Office and pay a couple of bucks for a bound copy.

I actually took his advice and still have the thing on my desk. It comes in handy on days like today.

Aguirre's archrivals at the U-T editorial board just fashioned a bomb out of a passage in the document and dropped it on his lap. If it explodes, it could be devastating.

Now, will it explode?

In case you missed it, the paper found a provision that prohibits a city official from accepting "any donation or gratuity in money, or other thing of value" from one of his or her subordinates.

The paper found the contributions Aguirre's top managers had made to his campaign and highlighted the salary raises each of those managers received. The charter calls for anyone guilty of violating this provision to forfeit their job.

Wow.

I talked to Stacey Fulhorst, the executive director of the city's Ethics Commission. She started by pointing out that the commission doesn't have jurisdiction over the city charter and can't interpret or enforce its provisions. The commission was built to enforce the ethics laws and campaign laws in the municipal code.

She said the commission did craft ethics laws for the city that prohibit candidates and city officials who run for office from soliciting donations from city employees. But the municipal code specifically does not prohibit city employees from donating to their bosses' campaigns.

"The Ethics Commission did not propose an outright ban on campaign contributions from city employees to officials because the commission received legal advice that it would violate their First Amendment rights to give to candidates of their choice," Fulhorst said.

So do we have a conflict between the city charter and the municipal code?

The last major one of these produced that epic fight about whether City Councilwoman Donna Frye properly should have been allowed to run as a write-in candidate.

You lawyers want to chime in?

-- SCOTT LEWIS




14 Comments so far on this story...

Not a lawyer, but I don't think there's a conflict here. Charter states a rule, and the Code is silent on the issue. Therefore, no conflict - Charter wins. If the Code specifically mentioned that it was OK for subordinates to give to their elected bosses, there would be a conflict.. but it doesn't. Now, is the Charter in violation of First Amendment rights to give to canidates? No, because the rule doesn't prohibit someone from contributing -- it prohibits the official from receiving. The same issue surrounds contribution limits - if someone wants to contribute $500 (limit is $300) they can try, however the official may only receive $300 (and would refund the $200). In the case of official/subordinate the limit is $0. Taste o' your own medicine, Mike.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 11:27 am

Has the UT checked into whether Jerry Sanders, Dick Murphy, Susan Golding, Bonnie Dumanis or Casey Gwynn ever accepted donations from their managers?? Doubtful. The UT is conducting a hatchet job against Aguirre in the face of upcoming elections. It would be nice to see the VOSD point this out. Let's look at the issues on the merits. It's like the whole pension fiasco never happened. Now all the problems in the universe belong to Mike?? This is classic San Diego. Mike becomes the boogey man and the pension fiasco gets swept under the rug.

Posted by Paul Lazarr | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 11:48 am

Sorry Tom, but just because the Code is silent does not mean that it is a violation and the Charter wins. Your First Amendment argument, again, is specious at best, because the last time I checked (and I could be wrong!) the Constitution trumped the Charter and the Code.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 12:44 pm

This must be one of those technicalities that Mr Aguirre hates so much. Lets see if he tries to slip this one through

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 12:45 pm

Sorry BBH, but you're missing some points. 1) Because the Code is silent, the only law you have available to follow is that expressed in the Charter. The Code does not expressly permit elected officials to receive funds from subordinates. Therefore, the only law available is under the Charter, which expressly prohibits such funds. In the Donna Frye/Write-In conflict, the Charter forbid write-ins, while the Code allowed them - an explicit conflict. 2) Of course the Constitution trumps Charter and code. But the law as written does not violate constitutional rights of persons to contribute to campaigns. The law prohibits officials from accepting them -- there's a legal difference. There is not a Constitional argument here, just like there is no Consitutional argument available against any other level of campaign contribution limits. Think, then breathe.. I look forward to your thoughts.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 12:52 pm

Question: Did he solicit contributions from his subordinates? Only an INDEPEDENT investigation will be able to tell for sure. If so, he's done! If not, the 1st Amendment trumps and people should be able to give as the law allows. If, as others suggest, previous office holders violated this charter provision, sorry, to bad, the standard has changed. Why you may ask? Because our City Attorney has shed so much light on Charter and its many provisions over the last few years we are all more informed. Thanks Mike!

Posted by RD | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 1:19 pm

Ha Ha Ha....Mike is just as corrupt as all of the rest of them bunch downtown. He will have to have a news conference to squirm out of this one. Me thinks he doust protest too much!

Posted by BBH fan | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 1:23 pm

Hmm, I just had two more thoughts. If this ultimately is found to be a legitimate violation, how many other Councilmembers have had subordinate staff contribute to them? Sanders wasn't an official during his first race, so he could be OK unless he very recently too contributions. Murphy, Golding -- unless their immediate staff gave, all City employees were technically under the Manager, not them. Could the Democratic Party retaliate by highlighting the contributions of staff from Falconor, Maienschein & Madoofus? Would the GOP extend their compaint to Frye, Peters, Atkins, etc? But the second, bigger question is: would these contributions accepted by Aguirre's (or another's) campaign constitute a donation to the official? Tricky, because the official and the campaign committee are two different (albeit related) entities. It's not the same as if they gave him money personally.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 1:56 pm

U-T editorialist Bob Kittle must have burned the midnight oil researching this piece of dreadful smear-work. I'm no lawyer either, but this is what I read: 1) an elected official MAY NOT SOLICIT contributions to his/her political campaign; 2) subordinates MAY CHOOSE to contribute OR NOT to an elected official's political campaign (First Amendment right); 3) a private citizen or group MAY ALLEGE impropriety on the part of an elected official and FILE a complaint with the CA Attorney General (Jerry Brown) who investigates and then decides to dismiss or refers to a Superior Court Judge for action against the elected official; 4) UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS of a quid pro quo -- employee raises for employee contributions HAVE TO BE PROVED. All sound and fury, a popular diversion, signifying a desperate Establishment.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 2:09 pm

In order to be fair to all elected City of San Diego officials, the Ethics Commission should study all campaign contributions from city workers. This looks like a law that no one in the City of San Diego was following, or the City was enforcing. The Ethics Commission selected to audit the campaigns of Mayor Sanders, Ben Heuso, Donna Frye, and Kevin Faulcocner on September 13, 2007 through a random drawing. link The City Charter Sections 217 No Payment for Office is about giving, not receiving. Section 218 No Contribution for Employment is about giving jobs to people who give you money or bribes. link What is more intersting are Sections 219 and 221 Pueblo Lands and Sales of Real Property that says the City cannot sell Pueblo Lands north of the San Diego River, or 80 acres of public land without a vote from the taxpaying citizens.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 2:44 pm

These unfounded accusations are exactly what Mike Aguirre has been doing since Day One. This half-hearted, poorly researched accusation by the U-T and now the SD-GOP have brought the anti-Mike folks down to his level. If this is the best we can go after Mike with then we should look forward to his re-election.

Posted by Jerry the politician | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 3:47 pm

It is mind boggling that Kittle can even make an issue of this. Aguirre has already said he did not solicit the lousy $1,640.00 he received. Where was Kittle's editorial page when the Pension Board, City Manager and City Council actively solicited the unions' permission to underfund the pension by millions in exchange for benefit increases??

Posted by Paul Lazarr | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 4:11 pm

La Playa - nice profiling - but, as I understand it, under the current strong Mayor gov't., only contributions to the Mayor, who has taken over the City Mgr's role, would be "Contributions to a superior by a subordinate". From teh UT, disparate raises were given out, where civil service employees receive only what their classification, City-wide, receives. Aguirre has given raises that differ among subordinates holding the same position....bribery?

Posted by Frank1 | reply to this comment
October 10, 2007 4:12 pm

Read Pat Flannery's take of the Bowtie Guy's editorial. As Pat says, maybe Kittle should get "canned" - it looks like he's about to be sued by Don McGrath who will have him for lunch. link

Posted by Ed | reply to this comment
October 11, 2007 10:02 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
8cdcd84

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

Booze Ban Moves On :

 

A council committee heard hours of testimony before forwarding options for a beach drinking ban to the full City Council.

Wednesday, October 10 -- 6:10 pm

Council Members Also Accepted:

 

A number of other politicians took campaign contributions from their employees, too.

Wednesday, October 10 -- 7:09 pm

Questioning the Editorial:

 

Two campaign law experts question whether the U-T's case against Aguirre would fly.

Wednesday, October 10 -- 4:17 pm


Sponsored By

MOST POPULAR STORIES:

SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

County's Home Repos Skyrocket :

 

Bank repossessions swell 14-fold in September compared to a year ago.

Wednesday, October 10 -- 7:05 am

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Tell Us What We Need to Hear:

 

Jonathan Kozol left me wanting more.

Tuesday, October 9 -- 2:09 pm

CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Sunroad's Fault, Not Mike's:

 

But the city attorney did not work to resolve or minimize the problem that both he and the mayor inherited

Wednesday, October 10 -- 4:13 pm

COMMENTARY: SLOP

The Lawyers :

 

The U-T's well-planned grenade may be blowing up in the paper's face.

Wednesday, October 10 -- 5:11 pm

COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

September Housing Supply and Demand :

 

The tightening mortgage market has caused an abrupt decline in home sales.

Tuesday, October 9 -- 10:54 am

Sponsored by

This Just In

School Testing Trouble on the Radio:

 KPBS airs a segment about student testing and its discontents. » Dec. 1 -- 10:00 am



The Beautiful People:

 Get to know some San Diegans you never might have met.

Dec. 1 -- 9:59 am


Incoming Council Members Weigh In on Budget Decision:

 Three out of the four new arrivals indicate they would have voted to save libraries and recreation centers.

Nov. 26 -- 5:22 pm


SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

41 Trees in Three Days:

 An update from Alan House, the cemetery manager who moonlights as a Christmas tree farmer.

Dec. 1 -- 3:12 pm



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Testing Trumps Teaching:

 Assessments are necessary but classroom teachers should determine which assessments to use.

Nov. 25 -- 7:55 pm



CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Voters Value Good Government:

 Nationally and locally, voters didn't just elect new governments on Nov. 4. They opened the door to new roles for government.

Nov. 25 -- 6:39 pm



COMMENTARY: SLOP

Our Audience:

 A quick point about that NYT article.

Dec. 1 -- 3:10 pm



COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Home Price Chartfest:

 Some more visuals on the latest Case-Shiller home price index release.

Nov. 28 -- 11:50 am


Copyright © 2008 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.