voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Ethics Commission Impartiality
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Ethics Commission Impartiality

Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:27 PM PST



I had been wondering one thing about the posts below on Luis Acle's upcoming appearance in front of the city of San Diego's Ethics Commission. How is the school board president guaranteed a fair hearing in front of the commission? After all, this is a preliminary hearing where the commission will decide whether there is enough evidence to support a full administrative hearing -- a trial of sorts -- on the ethics violations of which he's accused. The judges and jury in the trial would be the commission. Acle will be the respondent but the commission's executive director, Stacey Fulhorst, will be the petitioner.

Fulhorst works, year in and year out, in collaboration with members of the commission and follows their direction. They obviously trust and respect her greatly. How can Acle compete against that in some kind of hearing where the commission will decide between her account of what he did and his?

I put the question to Gil Cabrera, the lawyer who is chairman of the Ethics Commission. He admitted it was "somewhat awkward" of a position to be in.

"What we try to do is if an investigation starts heading in a contested direction, Stacey stops providing us a detailed factual discussion of what has occurred," Cabrera said.

In other words, most of the dozens of fines the commission has approved have been settlements with the people being investigated. And most have admitted what they did and claimed it was a simple mistake.

The full commission, of course, decides whether or not to initiate an investigation and it apparently did in Acle's case. Cabrera said that the commission always looks at what Fulhorst does and is willing to reject her findings.

"Our role with Stacey doesn't change so much even when we approve an uncontested stipulation. She has to present facts to us and we have to agree with them. The distinction now is there will be two factual presentations and applying them to the law is what we always do and it will be a matter of agreeing with her or not," Cabrera said.

If Acle doesn't like the result of whatever happens after that, he has the right to appeal the commission's decision to the San Diego Superior Court. But the commission will also have the right to begin collection procedures on any fine it levies. It refers any unpaid fines to the city treasurer, who can try to garnish the state tax refund or other income of a reluctant recipient of an Ethics Commission fine.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




3 Comments so far on this story...

It's another first for San Diego, I think: the President of the School Board may get his wages garnished for failure to pay debts. If Luis Acle plans to run for re-election in 2008, count me an ABA voter -- Anyone But Acle.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
November 14, 2007 11:32 am

I think you hit on a very troubling aspect of the "Ethics Commision" related to "Fairness". While many have "agreed" to wrong, many as you said were "mistakes" that were un-intentional or a misunderstanding of rules, regulations and guidelines that are not easily understood by the general public. MANY of those seeking election use volunteers who try their best to do the right thing and to follow the rules. Many of the fines and actions taken by the "Ethics Commision" are harsh and equal to killing an ant with a sledge hammer. I see a need to get back to the intent of their responsibilities and to punish those who intentionally violate the rules but not scare off those people who would otherwise provide a service to their community but for the heavy hands of the "Ethics Commission" decided it was not worth the effort.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
November 14, 2007 1:09 pm

Bravo to Sparky--whoever you are-You are indeed insightful---I was one of those who "paid" a fine-thus I guess in the eyes of the Ethics Commission Chair-I admited quilt---The fine was small, and I was assured by a friendly staff person, was as small as the Committees rules allowed-It was none the less made public and picked up by a press and reported--The error being made to look terrible. In my own case---Righting this wrong was more a financial decision then a Moral decision. My Attorney told me, to defend myself would cost far more then the fine-and My attoreny was my Cousin and he was giving me the Family rate--. To assume your not innocent because you pay a nuisence fine is just wrong--Have the committee pay for a private defender for the accused and lets make this a fair fight and see what happens.

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
November 19, 2007 12:17 pm


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
5a567d3

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.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.