Walt spent many years as an aide to county supervisors and then was the staff person for the Rancho Santa Fe Association before become assistant CAO and then getting the CAO job in 1999 (he was the only person the Board even consider for it). Having worked with him in then Supervisor Brian Bilbray's office, I would say it's true the Board doesn't need to micromanage because Walt is going to bend over backwards to ensure their every need and desire is anticipated and fulfilled. County government has no system of checks and balances, just five supervisors, a CAO and an attorney all walking in lockstep to ensure their jobs and guaranteed for life. They could use an attorney who would have the moxie to point out the the obvious conflicts of interest of using taxpayer-funded slush funds as a way to curry favor with groups that pay for trips,etc

Posted by Bob Hudson | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 10:04 am

Wasn't the county sued and didn't it lose on how it funded County Medical Services. As well, didn't it sue and lose on the medical marijuana issue?? That's just off the top of my head.

Posted by paul lazarr | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 10:23 am

I read the whole column last week, and this article is a little misleading. Ekard doesn't so much toot his own horn, but toot the horn of people who work for him, who don't always get the praise they deserve.

Posted by SD123 | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 10:51 am

I read the whole column last week, and this article is a little misleading. Ekard doesn't so much toot his own horn, but toot the horn of people who work for him, who don't always get the praise they deserve.

Posted by SD123 | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 10:51 am

Yes, we all long for the days when the City Attorney was competent and ethical and all those things that seem bothersome to the current leaders in that office. Sansone and crew are awesome as their numbers prove. Go County!!

Posted by JJ | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 11:21 am

Actually this is the first volley in the hit pieces to attack Donna Frye's known consideration for a County Supervisor seat. She is the most associated with Aguirre amongst council members, and the San Diego City Council is the direct target of this county broadside. // Essentially, this is a political act since it is not gratuitous, rather, it is strategic. // I like the "mature" comment by Mr. Ekard -- truly, so many of the city council members are decidedly immature they are impetuous and deeply self-interested. The irony, here, of course, is that Council Member Frye is not impetuous or self-interested, indeed, careful consideration and compassion for others are her trademarks/ political brand. // For sure the county would then try and brand her as one of the 7 other incompetents, but that is so ridiculous it will never stick.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 11:31 am

Did Aguirre ask you to take a whack at the county so the readers would not notice he made a fool of himself again yesterday at council.

Posted by SDvoter | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 11:32 am

Paul, the medical weed case is on appeal and the County has my highest esteem for challenging the state's deeply flawed initiative. I have NO problem with legitimate doctors writing legitimate perscriptions to be filled by legitimate pharmacies. I DO have a problem with quacks running perscription mills filled with high schoolers while crime-magnet dispensaries degrade our communties. This is exactly the situation now. No wonder the initiative's author has changed his position. With the exception of Ron Roberts, I'm glad the County has an actual backbone.

Posted by Straight Dope | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 12:37 pm

Straight Dope, it's not "the state's deeply flawed initiative." It's one that voters approved. Yes, it's not a very well-written law and there are too many people abusing it—-which is why San Diego's dispensaries were shut down. Instead of wasting time and money appealing a lawsuit they already lost, the county could enact guidelines that protect the people who truly benefit from medical marijuana—-the people the law was intended to help--and prosecute those who try to profit from Prop. 215.

Posted by KellyD | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 1:19 pm

The County's almost $5 billion budget, and the City of San Diego's has a $3 billion budget. The City provides services to 5 times the number of people in the unincorporated areas of the County. The City spends about 15% of the budget on capital projects compared to the County's less than 1%. The City and County spend about the same on public safety but remember the population differences; 500K people in the unincorporated areas, and 3 million in the City of San Diego. The County provides welfare services. The City sustains economic growth and development. This is an apples and oranges comparison... more like champagne versus avocados... love 'em both by the way.

Posted by Dimples | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 1:53 pm

Been a while since I have posted but stuff like this kills me... Dimples... the County provides many health and social services to residents of the City so in that regard your analysis is flawed. The County's mandate as a subagent of the state is much broader. Also, a lot of what drives public saftey costs is the geographic dispersion of constituents is big factor. Unincorporated areas are less dense and therefore require a higher cops to people ratio to meet response times. I don't know but county wide functions like animal control and drug interdiction might be in the budget for the sheriff as well. That being said, Scott, your editorial was right on... How does it go... Pride before the fall?

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 4:58 pm

Shouldn't the County be handling the health and human services issues like homelessness in San Diego. That should not be handled by the City. Let them tackle that one and see how wonderful they do.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 6:55 pm

You go Walt! It's about time that someone within the system had enough moxie to stand up for the great work that gets done by government employees every day. I didn't take his piece as an attack on the City of S.D. or any other City in our region. Walt raises an excellent point that I have been saying for a long time...experienced leaders and staff provide stability! Look at many of the other cities in our region and you will see that principle in action. YES anyone can point to SOMETHING that every one of the 18 cities and the County has done wrong. But it is time to get over the negative and move on to the positive dialogue! We need to stop finding the bad in everyone and everything! It is time to start constructive dialogues!

Posted by Marcela Escobar-Eck | reply to this comment
March 26, 2008 9:03 pm

Would someone at Voice please ask Mr. Ekard to explain why he is engaging in this PR effort. The points raised above are interesting, if not bordering on a conspiracy theory. These memos from Walt aren't like the typical City/County Manager behavior - and clearly from the description of his background above, Mr. Ekard is not a typical city/county manager - he's politically oriented rather than management oriented - that is his dna. So, my question really boils down to the primary motive for putting out these memos. Lets find out what really is going on.

Posted by What is the Purpose | reply to this comment
March 27, 2008 9:43 am

• 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.