Absolutely disingenuous and hilarious that McCann now says CV is solvent. Is this a way to end up screwing the whole city by welcoming the Chargers? He is their boy after all. Look at Barnett's fiscal analysis of the city. McCann is dreaming!

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
December 20, 2007 6:24 pm

John McCann has some explaining to do! He was on the council when the city went $20 million into their reserves, and he never said a word about it. He went along with the overspending, and now he's running for the Assembly and he's blaming the city manager. The trial of lies ends with the elected officials, not staff. John McCann was asleep at the switch, and now he should be held accountable. Now, I have to get to a meeting...

Posted by CVeyeballs | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 7:59 am

Beware Chula Vista--You can't afford the Chargers!

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 8:43 am

I agree with CVeyeballs and CoastWatcher. Elected officials should take responsibility for their votes.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 9:42 am

Mr. McCann and the Chula Vista city council made a big mistake when they all got into bed with the big real estate developers and sold zoning in return for campaign contributions. They failed to realize that real estate development is a boom and bust business, and that you cannot base a city's finances entirely around sprawl housing subdivisions and shopping centers. Previous members who have left the city council may escape the wrath of voters who are seeing the city's financial house of cards collapsing, but McCann is right in their cross hairs, and more developer money won't save him. Good luck.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 10:44 am

Oh Johnny....your incompetence is finally coming to light on the bigger stage. You were there when Rowlands was "cooking the books" and did NOTHING. You were there when all of Padillas problems arose and blamed everyone else even though you voted for all his indescretions. I think some of your supporters may be upset with your Rowlands comments....includin Dave who happens to know where all the bones are buried...including yours Johnny.

Posted by Chula Vista | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 3:46 pm

McCann and the other council members gave the former city manager a ridiculously generous severence package, on the condition that he not talk about the city or city issues for a year. What in the heck is that about? Can it be anything other than the council members buying him off to save their skin? And to buy them time? McCann, post a comment here and explain why that condition was insisted upon.

Posted by And another thing | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 7:27 pm

John McCann is a rather pathetic figure. He would have us believe that because he is the major cheerleader for bringing the Chargers to CV he is a very smart fellow. I thnk the danger in this is that he has come to believe it himself. He has a history of quickly recovering when caught with his hand in the cookie jar (Was the first to repay the $6000 he had taken for CVRC meetings he never attended - but only after it was made public.) But now he has put his foot in his mouth! Let us see how he recovers from this.

Posted by Chula Vistan with eyeswdeopen | reply to this comment
December 21, 2007 10:31 pm

You may have won in a little "gotcha" journalism game, but will it be worth it in the long run? That is, when you're trying to get info for this or another Chula Vista story and fewer people will talk to you because they can't trust you. So how was the other city manager "cooking the books"? We'll never know now, will we.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
December 22, 2007 4:01 pm

I think John McCann wanted to make an accusation, but he wanted people to think he was "caught." I can't believe that such a statement would just pop out of his mouth without planning. He isn't stupid. These words sound very intentional: "I don't know how I can eloquently say this but--". He wants to pretend that the new city manager made him aware of facts he never before considered. But we must remember that the council chose the new city manager to play this role. John McCann, Cheryl Cox and the rest are exactly as ignorant as they want to be, but not as ignorant as they claim.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
December 23, 2007 11:46 am

Scott Lewis traded a cheap-shot "It was the last guy's fault" quote for an opportunity to find out what really happened in Chula Vista. The Voice of San Diego might as well send Lewis on vacation. No one in CV will be talking to him anytime soon.

Posted by Jon in San Diego | reply to this comment
December 23, 2007 1:48 pm

It will be worth it. Scott is well aware of the public records act, and the mandatory attorneys fees that go to the requester if he has to go to court. Also, what's the alternative? Leave the issue alone so that he can hope to have some candor in the future? Come to think of it, I must have misunderstood your comment - you can't possibly mean what you seem to. I apologize. On another note, we know with certainty that McCann is checking this item and its comments, so let's invite him again to answer the question: Why did you put a muzzle on Rowland as a condition for his astounding sweetheart deal? Please answer us.

Posted by Yes, D, it will be | reply to this comment
December 23, 2007 4:00 pm

Well, well. "D" is upset that SLOP prints unflattering comments from Councilman McCann. If more journalists did this, we would have a better idea of how our elected officials r-e-a-l-l-y are. Too often journalists "go along" to "get along". Smart policitos know this and use it to their advantage. It's a pity that the "asleep at the switch" SD Union doesn't employ 1/2 of the journalistic enterprise of SLOP (even though I don't always agree with him. More coverage of elected officials leads to accountability and THAT is apparently what bothers "D". Of course, "D" could just be a loyal McCann supporter or staffer who feels compelled to defend the boss. Don't slay the messenger; journalists (with all of their warts and scars) are just doing their jobs. More power to them!

Posted by Southof8 | reply to this comment
December 25, 2007 9:55 am

To d- I think you missed the point. What VOSD was pointing out is how McCann fails to take responsibility for his part of the financial mess. As an elected official it is his job and indeed his legal duty to exercise oversight for all financial and policy matters. Obviously he failed to do that. No one can 'cook the books' without the approval and wink and nod of the council.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
December 25, 2007 12:14 pm

It is not the city manager who was cooking the books. The entire staff was trying to please the council members, who were determined to allow run away growth. The city has a Growth Management Committee, but staff ensures that they do not receive any information showing that growth thresholds are not met. Arteriols near freeways, capacity etc. are all excluded from traffic figures. The air quality report does not mention the non-compliance in CO or particulate matter. The financial report did not explain how development fees were spent for things they were not collected for or that the city was borrowing since 2003. Staff with consent of council painted a rosy picture and built way beyond what the city can afford to maintain. This will take many years to fix and a huge change in fiscal policies. Will they listen to the new city manager?

Posted by Theresa | reply to this comment
December 25, 2007 3:18 pm

Those commenting who do appear to be trying to protect the untrustworthy/boss, assume that Chula Vistans consider dishonesty an acceptable matter-of-fact. Outside of the politicos realm of our city, most residents who bother to try and participate to ensure citizens desired and best interests (including obtaining good political rep.s in terms of honesty and competency),do Not accept dishonesty and cover-up. Those who Are honest, i.e. Can be trusted, Will speak, truthfully. If McCann truly has facts of the nature he implied, it should outrage people that he and anyone else would think those facts should be buried and not brought to light, particularly by a responsible media in this country as it was intended to be at the outset.

Posted by John Erinyes Quest | reply to this comment
December 26, 2007 6:39 am

You people are killing me. To post #12, reread your own words. Lewis could've asked that last question himself, and probably could've gotten an answer. Now he can't, and wont, because he was trigger happy with the "gotcha" nonsense. The Freedom of Info act does NOT cover personnel issues. To Southof8, I have no idea how my post could lead even a half-witted person to conclude I'm a McCann supporter who wants neither him nor any elected officials held accountable for their actions. To Coast Watcher, I missed no point. As I said, Lewis could've got more answers, found out how the books were cooked, but he screwed up."Pick your battles"...sound familiar?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
December 26, 2007 1:24 pm

"D" is absolutely correct. It's not about McCann, it's about Lewis. He wrote the headline ("Councilman says books were cooked!") without having the story that should've followed it. In the process of shooting himself in the foot, Lewis has done the same to his readers.

Posted by Jon in San Diego | reply to this comment
December 28, 2007 3:54 am

Jon and "D" get over it! It IS about John McCann NOT Scott Lewis. McCann is the one carrying water for the Chargers, he is the one who is running for the Assembly, he is the one who sat on the council and watched our reserves fall from 28% to 6% and then asked how this happened. Duh! John McCann has a lot of explaining to do but so far he is strangely mute. As for Dave Rowland's response to this silliness, he told the Star News he was going to "Consider the source and then just ignore it.

Posted by CV Eyeswide open | reply to this comment
December 28, 2007 7:50 pm

Now CV eyes closed is killing me...Yes, it is about McCann. But please explain HOW he is to answer to anything now that Lewis played Gotcha with him? How is Lewis going to get answers from anyone in CV politics now? Who is going to trust him? He could've gotten a wealth of information to work with from an "anonymous source with inside information". Note, I said to work with. If McCann had given him false leads, he could've exposed him as a fraud. And now? Nothing. All you Lewis cheerleaders need to wake up. Lewis screwed up.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
December 30, 2007 1:00 pm

To "D": you still want to slay the messenger (as others have pointed out). It's clear there's a lot of "insider" posting going on here but the fact remains, if McCann understood that the "books were cooked", then he should have said something quite sometime ago and not gush it out in response to a relatively tame line of questions from SLOP and then go absolutely silent on the matter. He owes the folks who he represents an explanation and the way that works (are you listening, D?) is by answering questions from the media. That's the role of the press. So, for my money, it's not about SLOP but really about the Councilman's comments.

Posted by SouthBayGuy | reply to this comment
December 30, 2007 5:02 pm

I'm thinking the only "insider" posting going on here may be by Southof8 and his unwavering support of a a stupid mistake made by Lewis. As for McCann, he can go to prison for all I care. You seem unwilling or BillyBobHenryesque unable to grasp the issues here.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
December 31, 2007 7:38 am

Okay, D, you may have a point, which I now understand better. Lewis may have shut off at least one source of info in McCann, and should perhaps of done some legwork before running with this. And that last question I suggested could have and should have been asked (perhaps it was?). FYI, the Freedom of Information Act isn't applicable, its the CA Public Records Act, which may or may not apply to specific personnel issues or records - it depends heavily on what position the employee held, and the actual information being withheld. You can't hide otherwise disclosable records or info by simply putting in a personnel file or calling it a personnel record.

Posted by Post #12 | reply to this comment
December 31, 2007 1:20 pm

D, with more dim witteed comments, it never ends with her/him......

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 1, 2008 5:56 pm

By insider, I meant, city of CV insiders, not media insiders. I am not either of them by the way. Nor am I half-witted or dim... I will plead guilty to being tired of people who attack others personally just because one disagrees with their point of view. I'll also take the choice of an unfettered media (with all its failings)over censorship or self censorship. As to whether or not any politican will talk to the media after a "negative" story, stick around, time will present the answer to that one, but I am betting the answer is "yes" because an elected official h-a-s to talk to the media in order to get their message out.

Posted by SouthBayguy | reply to this comment
January 2, 2008 5:03 pm

Please consider: The, or a, point is that responsible journalism shines light where it's dark, brings clarity to the ambiguous. This particular article at issue, does just that. Legwork can still be done, and most certainly should be done. McCann could contribute to that work, as a responsible and honest (in the broad sense of that term) politician would. That of course is not happening, so in turn it was the right move to expose the character of those who are supposed to uphold their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents. The legwork can now be done. It has begun through most of the comments to this article. Keep hoping for industrious journalism and more articles about those "books" (in the broad sense as well)

Posted by John Erinyes Quest | reply to this comment
January 5, 2008 12:38 am

John McCann is a bought and paid for tool of the Chargers and developers. Just a year ago, Chula Vista was so awash in cash that generous Councilman McCann couldn't wait to shower them with tax money. Alas, now it's clear that this was only possible through cooking the books. Sound familiar? San Diego "cooked the books" to find money for the Chargers and the Padres giveaways, and now we're nearly bankrupt. How much money have the moguls given McCann's Assembly campaign, Scott? This guy could use a little scrutiny...

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
January 7, 2008 9:46 pm

• 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.