1) Didn't City Attorney Aguirre warn us the SEC was not through with San Diego? Let's give credit where it's due. 2) Re flawed Prop C (coming before voters in June) calling for City Charter changes that will place the Auditor under the Mayor's control: wasn't disgraced Auditor Ed Ryan also under the control of Management at that time? Yesterday it was the City Manager's thumb; in June it will be the Mayor's thumb. 3) San Diego needs an independent Auditor who is not beholden to Management in any form. Vote No on Proposition C.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 3:58 pm

I listened to Mayor Sanders press conference today. He said that progress is being made. Didn't the former city manager(s) appoint the City Auditor (please see Ed Ryan)? And, even after SEC charges, billions of dollars in the hole, Mr. Sanders believes that is a best practice of governance for the mayor to appoint the City Auditor. Jerry Sanders should not be re-elected on that single action, alone. He didn't learn anything from the past; instead, Jerry Sanders is perpetuating the sordid past.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 4:05 pm

I'd like to know how Bruce Herring escaped scrutiny from the SEC. His hands were none too clean, and he skipped out with a huge benefit from the deal that was struck. It's a disgrace that those most responsible for the fiasco will never have to pay for their wheeling-dealing ways...in fact, they benefit hugely from the bad deals and the stupid management above them. Too sad.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 4:27 pm

I see that the SEC is skipping the City Council members who were the true culprits in this matter. Politicans skate again, while the hard working City Employees get the shaft. The Senior Staffs members work at the direction of the Council members. This is truly a miscarriage of justice. For the Council members to claim that they were mislead is absolutely absurd. The politicians treated their Employees like congressional "Pages."

Posted by Salmon | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 5:01 pm

The SEC was pretty specific with the charges. I don't think it will change a thing for the City, the pension benefits, etc. Five individuals committed securities fraud by failing to disclose the City's pension debt to investors. They don't say that the benefits are illegal. They don't say that you can't take home more money than you made. I doubt they care about that. They looked at who signed the documents. I have already heard Aguirre on the radio making it sound like this bolsters his pension case. I don't see it. I do not like the thought of an elected Auditor. In spite of the one shortfall, I prefer an appointed auditor who doesn't have to worry about an election.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 5:52 pm

What's Sanders smoking?

Posted by dannyboy | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 6:05 pm

What's Sanders smoking?

Posted by dannyboy | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 6:05 pm

I have the same question Salmon does, what about the city council? As readers of VOSD are well aware, two members of the council that approved Managers II are now running for city attorney. Although one would think the public would be well-informed enough at this point to dismiss the ambitions of Messers Peters and Mainschein out of hand, I hope the SEC holds them accountable and before the election.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 6:32 pm

MP2 and approving of MP2 was not illegal. Not disclosing the pension debt is what the SEC is calling fraud. There is the problem. The City Council is not responsible for the disclosures. City staff (former staff) was.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 8:55 pm

I would suspect that others will also be charged in due course. Justice is slow soemtimes.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 12:21 am

Salmon and jorgeelgato have very good points. What about the City Council ? They knew or should have known about the pension fiasco. It would not have been possible to perpetuate without the agreement of the council - and now you have 2 of that same council running for city attorney ! The present day San Diego City Attorney, although certainly lacking in the tact department, brought the pension fraud to light. It is obvious that he is not one of the "good old boys" and not on the "favorites" list downtown. If the City Councils do not understand what they approve, they just shouldn't approve - they should ask questions and get answers so that they can make informed decisions. I wonder just how many other city staffs are guilty of similar infractions of SEC law ?

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 5:06 am

Remember the root of this was to "free up" money so the city could give it away to the Chargers and the Padres. The union bosses agreed to keep quiet in exchange for inflated pensions later. Now it's all unravelled, but Spanos and Moores still got their millions, and the union bosses still got their double-dipped pensions. Scott Lewis needs to answer the obvious question, "cui bono", -- who benefited from the fraud? The names Spanos, Moores, and McGrory come immediately to mind. Get to work Scott...

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 5:40 am

You're wrong Ann. City council signs off on the disclosures and are ultimately responsible. They shouldn't be signing anything they don't understand. It was obvious to Frye that the numbers didn't add up. So, are Scott Peters and Brian Mainschein stupid, or corrupt?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 6:57 am

I'm sure "Ann," presumably the lawyer representing City employees who understandably want to hold on to their pensions which were fraudulently kited by sharp politicians on the pension board and inside City Hall, would prefer an "appointed auditor who doesn't haved to worry about an election." (Lobbying is much easier than messy democratic process.) Let's face it: Labor is a desirable ally for anyone running for office, and the Mayor has Labor in his pocket on this one -- or vice versa, depending on how you choose to look at it. But the people of San Diego need to build a politically independent Auditor into the system: vote No on Prop C. This flawed measure makes the Auditor the Mayor's person. After the SEC rulings, I think we've had enough, don't you?

Posted by FO'NZ | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 6:58 am

Sorry Ann, but MP2 and approving MP2 were illegal, due to the lack of funding for the increased benefits. The Staff knew it and the City Council knew it and now Staff (but not all of the culprits) has been charged with fraud. Let's hope the City Council is next, as the persons who actually voted for these under-funded benefits. To hear it from the Fab Four, it was Staff that made them do it. Makes you think that they can't even balance their own checkbook - oops, sorry Mr. Madaffer. Wasn't he the one who smugly stated "Let them sue us'? Hope he's holding his breath waiting for the other shoe to drop. Leanne1 is correct - Bruce Herring should not escape, based on his giveaways to the Chargers alone. Thank you SEC. Now keep the charges coming.

Posted by Buddy in Mission Valley | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 7:13 am

The elected officials involved in the conspiracy to allow/hide the underfunding of the pension fund are not probably the jurisdiction of the SEC. They were hiding the underfunding from citizens of San Diego, not the bond market, they gave unfunded pension benefits, to get the pension board to allow the underfunding. This is the D.A.'s job, Ms. Dumanis has charged the responsible pension board members for accepting a quid-pro-quo, but she has not charged the city officials who agreed to the arrangement.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 10:15 am

The pension plans were not found to be illegal or legal...what was decided was that too much time had passed to hold those accountable who created the mess, and that has been interpreted as a free ride by at least one union leader and her personal though union paid attorney. Running out the clock does not make someone innocent by default. There are many people who benefited from the inflated pensions who have dirty hands and will never pay for the problems they caused. Unfortunately, those who will be punished are new employees who have many fewer benefits in order to cover the cost of the rapidly retiring older generation of workers. Unfortunately workers are not given a real choice of unions, and the corruption continues even as the honey pot empties.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 10:28 am

Sorry Buddy, but every court that's evaluated MP-1 and 2 disagrees. Holding your breath, stamping your feet, and whining about illegal pensions don't make it so. You clearly don't understand the SEC action. Its about disclosures to potential bond purchasers, not about the legality of pension benefits. Many wil try to conflate the two issues to score rhetorical points, but it don't make no difference where it matters: in court.

Posted by tseuG | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 10:51 am

The comments regarding Bruce Herring and the council members are well founded. Let me add to the Herring legacy. The US Open is coming to Torrey Pines this June. The city will receive $500,000 from the USGA. The going rate for private courses (approx. 350 members) hosting a US Open golf tournament is $15 million. Herring and Will Griffith (former RE Assets Director) orchestrated this give away to benefit wealthy hotel operators, etc. The city will lose money on this entire spectacle. There were years of high ranking city officials feathering the nests of their corporate and union pals. Along the way, they made sure that they got some sugar too.

Posted by Torrey Pines | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 1:25 pm

The US Open had to be lured to San Diego. There is no way they would pay $15 million to play on our measly municipal course. It might be the gem of San Diego, but it's not the gem of golf courses they have to choose from. Instead San Diego gets publicity, increased tourism, etc. Hotels all over San Diego will get increased business. How much has the NFL paid when it had a Superbowl here? Nothing! It's not about the rent. $500,000 was probably just a "nominal fee" for the most part. So Herring is gone, Griffith was fired...how did they feather their nests with this tournament?

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 10:13 pm

Larry, why do you just pick on Scott Peters and Brian Whatshisname? What about the other five politicians? (Donna voted for the pension before she voted against it.) Wait there were six others including the Mayor who used to vote before the Mayor became "strong" and lost the vote....

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 8, 2008 10:16 pm

So Ann, why do you believe that this municipality is in place to promote private businesses? Have you read this week about pool closures, etc. 15 million would be useful. Have you considered that city government is for all of the citizens, not just a few wealthy business people? The major city players in the Open negotiations have left and gone on to lucrative positions in the leisure and real estate industries. Herring to Elite Racing. Ellie Oppenheim to the convention industry in Reno(450K). Connect the dots. There is a segment of folks that agree with your positions. If you all believe that you have the better path, then why don't you all engage in some up-front transparency. Make your case and stick to it. Unfortunately, most of what you have advocated is negotiated in SECRET.

Posted by Torrey Pines | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 6:36 am

Mr. Peters and Mr. Maienshein get my scorn, because they have the audacity to think the voters would elect them to any office, much less city attorney. Mayor Sanders resigned, after Newsweek identified him, as one of the worst mayors in the US. They didn't publish a list of the country's worst city councils, but if they did...

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:13 am

I meant Mayor Murphy resigned because of the Newsweek article. I think Mayor Sanders is doing the best he can, considering...

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:23 am

OK. Now the SEC has indicted the city employees who wrote and allowed fradulent reports to go to the regulators, the market and the public. Now what about Mayor Murphy and those city council members who signed off on the fradulent reports? Why should they get a free pass? Either they were totally clueless and signed off on something they didn't read, or they conspired in the effort to commit fraud. In either case they failed to comply with the law. Now two of them are saying they should be elected to enforce the laws as city attorney. Hopefully, the voters won't buy it.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:32 am

Torrey Pines: Which private courses have been paid $15 million to host the US Open? I have read recently of some famous courses turning down the opportunity to host the Open because the members didn't want the "hassle".

Posted by Tigershark | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 6:07 pm

20. Ann wrote on April 8, 2008 11:13 PM: "The US Open had to be lured to San Diego. There is no way they would pay $15 million to play on our measly municipal course. It might be the gem of San Diego, but it's not the gem of golf courses they have to choose from.....ANN, please go pal around with your union buddies, and leave the serious discussion to those of us that know what we are talking about.....To say Torrey Pines is a "measly" gold course (where the USGA plays a HUGE sold out tournament every February) is like saying the Indy 500 is a "measly" car race. And to all you unionites who think MP-I and PM-II are leagal, the CA Supreme Court will stike BOTH down.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:25 pm

1)I am glad someone corrected Ann's misperception of Torrey Pines Golf Course as as some crummy municipal links. I've heard that local duffers wish they could more easily use it....also, if it really were "measly" as Ann alleges, would the Evans Family have gotten a sweetheart lease from the City to build one of their hotels on that property? I think not. 2)Steve K should not confuse his fondness for the figure of Mayor Sanders, a rumpled, amiable-seeming Everyman who is fronting for the downtown establishment as he bumbles around, with the notion of "doing the best he can, considering...." As a big city in a lot of trouble for a long time, we deserve much better than that in our mayor. Sanders has had four years and has nada to show for it.Time to move on.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
April 10, 2008 8:29 pm

1)I am glad someone corrected Ann's misperception of Torrey Pines Golf Course as some crummy municipal links. I've heard that local duffers wish they could more easily use it....also, if it really were "measly" as Ann alleges, would the Evans Family have gotten a sweetheart lease from the City to build one of their hotels on that property? I think not. 2)Steve K should not confuse his fondness for the figure of Mayor Sanders, a rumpled, amiable-seeming Everyman who is fronting for the downtown establishment as he bumbles around, with the notion of "doing the best he can, considering...." As a big city in a lot of trouble for a long time, we deserve much better than that in our mayor. Sanders has had four years and has nada to show for it.Time to move on.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
April 10, 2008 8:29 pm

I feel Sanders is doing the best he can. I didn't and don't intend to vote for him, however.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 13, 2008 8:12 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.