The memo discussed a special retirement benefit some officials wanted to give to firefighter union president Ron Saathoff. Those maneuverings later raised the suspicions of the U.S. attorney, who filed charges against Saathoff and several other officials involved. A trial on the counts has been delayed.
Investigators hired by the city to look into the matter asked Peters if he knew what city staff was talking about when they sent the memo to him. What did he think at the time? His answer was that "he tended to give memoranda prepared for closed session meetings (such as this one) less attention than others because he received them on Fridays at which time he was usually out of the office seeing constituents or playing golf."
This all came from a summary of the interview of Peters that Kroll Inc. conducted in May 2006.
It's pretty clear that little juicy nuggets like this one are going morph themselves into some mailers and commercials and all types of campaign rhetoric against Peters if (actually when) the City Council president decides to run for city attorney.
Why would he do it? Why would Scott Peters run in what is clearly going to be the most contentious local political contest in recent memory? His experience as a corporate, environmental and municipal attorney certainly would earn him a post in some law firm somewhere where he could play golf without guys like me having any reason to care?
I'd love to ask Peters that, but I'm not the only whose call he isn't taking this week. He's spending time with his family -- something he won't be able to do much of now if he's serious about trying to win this seat.
Even if he were to talk to reporters he'd just say something like this: "I feel like the city attorney has failed to do his job and that I can make a difference."
There are other reasons of course. And while I'm making things up that he might say, I'm going to try to piece together another motivation.
Peters wants to run for city attorney because he wants to win. I know, great insight, right?
But I don't mean that he wants to win the election. Sure, he may look forward to four-to-eight more years of those mind-numbing City Council meetings. Sure, he may be moved by the calls from labor and others anxious for a prominent Democrat to challenge incumbent Mike Aguirre. Sure he thinks he can do a good job, put a troubled office back on the right track, perhaps save his legacy and move on to bigger and better things like that.
All that is good but Peters wants to run because he wants to win a bigger battle. For more than three years, Peters has been arguing with Aguirre. Day in and day out, the two have sparred. What Peters wants is to win that argument once and for all.
After the 2005 mayoral election, Peters would make a similar point from time to time. He'd pick on Pat Shea, a lawyer who had vied for mayor with a platform to lead the city government through bankruptcy. Peters would point out whatever paltry total of votes Shea won and deduce that the vote reflected the proportional appetite for the idea of bankruptcy.
This corresponded to Peters' own view of the concept. To him, voters had concurred with him that the city hadn't really slipped to a point where bankruptcy was attractive.
To Peters, voters have the power not just to put people into office, but to validate (or spike) the ideas the candidates proffer.
Peters has always believed that out in San Diego Land a silent majority of people existed who quietly watched the city descend into an unnecessary controversy. He has always believed that all of the scandal of 2002 and beyond was largely an artificial bubble of hysteria.
Look through that interview the investigators conducted with Peters and you'll see him refer to pension whistleblower Diann Shipione, Shea's wife, as bitter, unstable and ill-motivated. The frenzy she whipped up got out of hand in Peters' mind. Kroll and countless others later concluded that Shipione's warnings were a "rare and abrupt departure" from the culture of corruption of financial management.
Peters dismissed that report.
And the Securities and Exchange Commission conclusions? The U.S. attorney investigations? Also unfortunate validations of the hysteria, in Peters' opinion.
Unable to admit to mistake or misjudgment, Peters has left the scandal to plague his legacy.
The obligations to the city's pension system continue to weigh on the city in ways that city and pension officials used to say they never would. Luckily for Peters, though, the civic discussion largely moved on over the last two years.
At the same time, as if struggling to grasp onto the glory of past scandal, Aguirre has floundered in that vacuum. He became reckless. His definition of his job -- that he represents the people not the city -- took on so many strange implications that people like Peters began to make sense. As Aguirre devolved, Peters tried to become a leader.
Now, with the confidence a couple of years like that can build, Peters believes he's in a position to win the election.
With it, he'd win the argument -- win the debate.
And like the idea of bankruptcy, he sees a win at the polls confirming that all of ideas Aguirre trumpeted were wrong and all of his were right.
That must sound better than all of the Friday afternoon golf games he can dream of.
Comments so far on this story:
1. Ronald wrote on February 13, 2008 9:19 PM:
"Interesting analysis. Bottom line, if Peters went head to head with Aguirre, he'd win. We may not see that matchup, but there is little question about the result. What that says about the city, I don't know. I do know that we don't have anyone running that is an excellent choice for the job. Too bad."
2. Jim wrote on February 13, 2008 9:49 PM:
"You could be right Scott, the citizens of SD could be caught in the middle of a bunch of egomaniacal politicians who have nothing better to do but than be "right." However, there are those of us who have had to live through the past 8 years on not only a personal level (being a citizen watching our infrastructure and quality of life crumble) and a professional level where incompetence and apathy is constantly rewarded (i.e. Colleen Windsor is SANDAG's new spokesperson) and may hold a more sinister view. The corruption is at a level in this City that many high level officials and politicos still need to protected from the truth ever coming to light, Scott Peters being one of them. Riding out the statute of limitations could also be a motivating factor. It's a shame you didn't take that into consideration."
3. Fed Up wrote on February 13, 2008 10:24 PM:
"I am astonished that Scott Lewis has written so critically and so accurately about Scott Peters. I never wouldathunkit. There is and will be plenty to criticize about the City Council President as he runs against populist Mike Aguirre. While Peters may be pleased to poll better than Alan Bersin, that isn't saying much, as Peters has made many enemies by reneging on his commitment to enviros, neighborhoods and community groups. But he is a smooth dog and has tons of money to throw at a race -- his own and largesse from downtown insider friends whom he has carefully cultivated for 12 long years on the City Council. Anyway, thank you, Scott Lewis."
4. Fred Williams wrote on February 13, 2008 11:13 PM:
"Ah, the sad truth. It's all about winning...having a greener garden than the neighbors, driving a flashier car, putting a bigger title on your business card, all of which is so admired on the golf course Friday afternoons. This is nothing like public service. No, this is private service, self-service, a frenzied stroking of the ego, leaving the citizens of the city to clean up the inevitable sticky messes. I sincerely hope Peters runs so I can campaign against him."
5. RD wrote on February 14, 2008 6:58 AM:
"The public good does not seem to be Mr. Peters' first motivation. The record is clear with precise information; Mr. Peters made a choice to ignore warning signs. He rationalized the whistle blower warning away or was there more? Did he realize the jig was up, hoping an apathetic electorate didn't notice. Should Mr. Peters move into the City Attorney's office, should we expect anything different? San Diego needs a qualified City Attorney who has not been tainted by previous involvement in this debacle."
6. Christopher Hall wrote on February 14, 2008 8:01 AM:
"Works like this one spell out in detail and express clearly the things we all think in the back of our minds yet don't truly see until it's all put together. Thank you."
7. Peters is a dodo wrote on February 14, 2008 8:26 AM:
"Excellent piece, astute analysis of what makes Mr. Peters-Evans run. I am looking forward to the day when I don't have to read about him or even hear about him. Thank God for term limits. Aguirre may not be perfect, but he has been a voice for the people, something no SD politician in my memory has ever been. The culture of corruption is endemic in this city and Peters-Evans is a good example. He hears what he wants to hear and puts his own self-serving analysis on what he doesn't like. Disgusted with his representation in UC."
8. Peters is a dodo wrote on February 14, 2008 8:42 AM:
"Fred Williams, can I campaign alongside you?"
9. Peters is a dodo wrote on February 14, 2008 8:42 AM:
"Fred Williams, can I campaign alongside you?"
10. Paul Lazarr wrote on February 14, 2008 8:51 AM:
"Great article Scott!! With somone asking the tough questions, perhaps Peters won't get a pass on his involvement in the pension fiasco. Obfuscation is the MO in San Diego. And the idea that the success of this tactic somehow validates that malfesors is laughable."
11. Steve K wrote on February 14, 2008 8:53 AM:
"Mr Peters wants to win, huh? I think he is setting himself up for a personal awakening, where he will discover that he and his colleagues, who helped create and presided over San Diego's 'Enron by the Sea' period, when the government is run in a 'climate of corruption'. Maybe he will realize what a terrible public servant he has been, and that he will never hold an elected public office in San Diego, again. Then again, he doesn't seem to be very good at self evaluation."
12. LJ wrote on February 14, 2008 9:26 AM:
"Well, there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Peters has so much baggage that I'm truly suprised he's running. When it all comes out, it just may finish his political career. Has ANYONE pointed out that the taxpayers have a running bill of almost $700,000 in legal bills for Peters? He's unpopular in his district. His ego may finally be his undoing. We can only hope!"
13. Norman wrote on February 14, 2008 9:32 AM:
"I agree and disagree... to say Aguirre devolved is incorrect. In fact, he remains a powerful force and that is why the Dumanis and Kolander (Dumander team) are holding a public service announcement of their support for Goldsmith. Aguirre has a enless energy and I believe alot of support of the public no matter how much you and the UT try and comdemn. The forces will try to wear him down and degrade him but I believe in the end they'll all have egg on their face. I do agree with your statement "Peters tried to become a leader." Tried doesn't mean succeeded. You are right, Peters has a big ego, his wife makes alot of money so he's able to play the game and try to win. It will be interesting to watch this race."
14. KeenObserver wrote on February 14, 2008 9:36 AM:
"Peters refuses to reveal his lawyer's invoices,by invoking attorney client privilege.Taxpayers paid over $600,000 to these lawyers, who Peters hired to defend him against the FBI investigation.Do we really want a city attoney who is being invetigated by the FBI ?"
15. MF wrote on February 14, 2008 9:44 AM:
"I don't see Mr. Peters as a good choice for City Attorney but I would gladly vote for him over Aguirre."
16. Clif Williams wrote on February 14, 2008 9:47 AM:
"Scott Peters is one of the most dedicated public servants this City has ever had. (Full disclosure, I was Mr. Peters' Chief of Staff for several years.) Scott cares deeply about this City, its environment, and its economy. To get things accomplished he has had to compromise and work with all sides on an issue. Thats leadership. That doesn't always make people happy, but it gets things done. Instead of taking pot shots at people, he makes getting things done the priority. In his district he has opened dozens of parks, new police and fire stations, and helped protect our beaches and bays, because he is focused on producing results. Scott Lewis' cyncical editorial only gets one thing right, Scott does play to win. But not to win an argument (that is a silly premise), Scott Peters wins through accomplishments for our City and his constituents."
17. Concerned Woman wrote on February 14, 2008 10:15 AM:
"Scott Peters may not be perfect, but at least he hasn't been sued for sexual harrassment (Aguirre) nor has he had domestic violence allegations wielded against him by his wife (Goldsmith). I would take Peters over those two any day."
18. Sparky wrote on February 14, 2008 11:14 AM:
"I have read your article several times now Scott and not sure how to take it. The article almost sounds like you wrote it from Mike Aguirre's perspective. You made a lot of assumptions and statements that tell only half of the story. Scott Peters is correct in his description of Shipione and Shea as well as the "artificial bubble of hysteria" surrounding SDCRS. What is it you are trying to convey with this article Scott? Myself and several others who have read this piece are at a loss as to what you we are suppose to take from this. Lots of half statements and insinuations but very little fact or substance. Aguirre is the worst thing that has ever happened to this City. He is not as "Peters is a dodo" states; the voice of the people. Quite the opposite."
19. Billy Bob Henry wrote on February 14, 2008 11:30 AM:
"16. Clif Williams wrote on February 14, 2008 8:47 AM: "Scott Peters is one of the most dedicated public servants this City has ever had. (Full disclosure, I was Mr. Peters' Chief of Staff for several years.....Clif buddy, please put a cork in it."
20. Watcher wrote on February 14, 2008 12:10 PM:
"Mr. Peters has broken the law too many times in his role on the city council to be qualified to serve as the city attorney. His willful disregard for the law renders him unfit for the city attorney job."
21. Paul Lazarr wrote on February 14, 2008 12:13 PM:
"Hey Clif - Save it for the UT ..."
22. Clif Williams wrote on February 14, 2008 12:29 PM:
"My apologies. I forgot that this comment space was the "glass half empty" crowd, and a sanctuary for cynics. Cheers to all!"
23. Larry wrote on February 14, 2008 1:44 PM:
"Hey Clif? Right now, most of our glasses aren't even half empty. They're totally empty because Peters hogs all the water for himself."
24. Ian Cunningham wrote on February 14, 2008 4:29 PM:
"What does it say about our collective lack of common sense when we lambast someone who has tried to do what was best for the city by finding a civic course that strives for the common good rather than giving lip service to dead end extremes. Sure Scott Peters could have pandered to various groups, been the sole, (or second) "no" vote on many issues and marginalized himself. I find that when our elected officials actually find ways to get things done, they are doing the job they were hired for."
25. Christopher Hall wrote on February 14, 2008 7:16 PM:
"Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha -- No, really, Clif stop -- Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha -- Please stop...Agghh!"
26. Rocky wrote on February 14, 2008 9:10 PM:
"Scott, thanks for a great article and telling it like it is. BBH, Larry, Watcher, Paul Lazaar, and many more of you who posted here, You are my kinda folks and like you all, I think Mike needs more time in the job to stir it up even more. I can't wait for the election so I can check that box beside Mike's name."
27. Jorgeelgato wrote on February 14, 2008 10:41 PM:
"Yo Ian, Clifton, please respond to the major point Scott L made, to wit: Peters excuse for missing the illegality and damage created by Managers Proposal II was that he was too busy golfing on Friday afternoons or schmoozing with the folks in La Jolla who want to kill baby seals. In the absence of some coherent response I will assume that you believe this is a sufficient excuse for what has cost the city literally millions of dollars, including in particular the $664,000 of city money spent on Peters legal defense. Please do not bother with any more blather about how he tries to reach consensus, just a simple explanation about whether Peters excuse suffices for you."
28. clp wrote on February 15, 2008 2:10 PM:
"It's nice to see Jorge pouncing on Peters (and his running dog) again, claws out! Detached, poor legal judgement, inability to admit (or rectify) a mistake. Hmmmmm... After the torments inflicted by the Bush disaster why would we want to see Mr. Peters in any elective office in San Diego, particularly the City Attorney's Office?"
29. Ian C. wrote on February 15, 2008 5:01 PM:
"If our current city attorney wasn't an incompetent sociopath with little grasp of the law, we wouldn't be paying millions of our tax dollars to pay for outside attorneys. The fact is our elected officials rely on experts, auditor, (competent) attorneys to provide them with proper analysis. They then vote to ratify what the "experts" have advised. The Council was abandoned by our experts."
30. La Playa Heritage wrote on February 16, 2008 3:16 AM:
"link Mr. Goldsmith's Commitment # 9 to the People of San Diego has already been broken. 9. As a condition of employment, all attorneys in the office will conduct their work in a non-partisan, non-political manner, and act with the highest integrity. Members of the public, judges, city staff, city council members and the mayor will be treated with respect at all times even when expressing disagreement. Is this the type of disrespect the general public should look forward to under Mr. Goldsmith? We hope not. An apology to the public is in order. link"
31. Torrey Pines wrote on February 16, 2008 8:51 AM:
"Hey Clif Williams the glass is more than half empty because your idol, Scott Peters, keeps sucking an inordinate amount of public water for his La Jollan estate. Why don't the two of you mix in case of Perrier for each other and save some regular water for the rest of us slumming San Diegans? Peters for City Attorney is like Judge Judy for the Supreme Court."
32. Rocky wrote on February 16, 2008 8:56 AM:
"Ian C. wrote on February 15, 2008 4:01 PM: "If our current city attorney wasn't an incompetent sociopath with little grasp of the law, we wouldn't be paying millions of our tax dollars to pay for outside attorneys." Well Ian C, Got any comments on the millions of tax payer dollars going into an "out of control" city pension plan that our current city attorney has been trying to correct?"
33. jorgeelgato wrote on February 16, 2008 10:58 AM:
"So that's all they do, ratify what the "experts" tell them? So why would we want one these mindless ratifiers in a position to give advice? Oh and by the way Ian, Mike isn't the one who told Peters to approve Managers Proposal II-- it was one Casey Guinn, one of those nice guys the Chamber of Commerce liked so much."
34. Fred Williams wrote on February 16, 2008 11:38 AM:
"So the question is: Did we shell out $664,000 because Peters puts playing golf before reviewing official city documents before a vote? He says he trusted his staff, who messed up, (but none were reprimanded except the whistle-blowers). So, which is it, then...Incompetence or Indifference that led him to neglect his official duties and instead play with his buddies? Mr. Peters? We're all looking forward to being active in your campaign."
35. clp wrote on February 16, 2008 12:25 PM:
"Ian, instead of vituperating perhaps you could consider the facts in the article. Or how about this one: Peters pushed certification of the Regents Road bridge even though the CA and 1st outside counsel opinions-that proved to be correct- were that the EIR was legally insufficient (and that is not even considering related conflicts of interest currently being investigated by the state). Peters finally settled on a law firm that would do his bidding. The result: the City is paying $450 K to plaintiffs in the Regents lawsuit, and more than $100K to losing outside counsel. This is only one of several such losses in environmental lawsuits. Instead of name calling, maybe you should consider where Mr. Peters' ego has taken our City so far, and where he might take us as City Attorney."
36. Richard Rider wrote on February 16, 2008 12:57 PM:
""Perhaps Peters is looking at San Diego's sad history of rewarding city council miscreants with higher office. (City Attorney pays maybe three times higer salary than city council.) Juan Vargas and Christine Kehoe were termed out in 2000, and then went on to bigger salaries in state legislature. Both were major players in passing retroactive city employee pension increases. But even more egregious, they voted THEMSELVES huge early retirement pensions two months before leaving office. If they can get away with such actions, surely Peters can pull it off too. But maybe not. Perhaps this time the voters are up to speed on the pension debacle, and Peters' major role in the problem. Perhaps.""
37. Dude wrote on February 16, 2008 1:10 PM:
"This is hilarious!! People trying to bring Scott down for what he has cost the City...like MA hasn’t cost the City millions in frivolous and meritlous lawsuits, always chasing his ever elusive white whale (Moby Aguirre)...a win. Scott has been the best leader this City has seen in a long time and his accomplishments FAR OUTWEIGH any mistakes that a rookie councilman may have made. I believe SP is running b/c the City needs him to, the MA loyalists are so blinded by their own ignorance...it just baffles me. Ian C is right on target with his comments."
38. Fred Williams wrote on February 16, 2008 3:09 PM:
"Richard, we're gonna have some FUN this year with these folks. It's far to late for them to sweep this all under the rug, but it isn't too late for us to sweep them out of office...let the campaigns begin..!!"
39. anybodybutaguirre wrote on February 16, 2008 11:19 PM:
"Regardless of what you think of Scott Peters, anyone who's spent more than a few minutes with Mike Aguirre in person can tell you: the guy's not right in the head. Seriously. So what will Peters' campaign slogan be? Vote for me: at least I'm not nuts. The pension fiasco is awful, no denying that. But why is Aguirre continuing to dig the city into a deeper financial hole by repeatedly suing his own council and employees in losing cases, and running up the city's costs for outside counsel? Does this sound like someone we need? Voters, please pay attention!"
40. dlady447 wrote on February 17, 2008 7:28 PM:
"You're right. Scott Peters not only dismisses the needs of community groups, he lies to them. He also lied to the people who worked the streets to get him elected in the first place. Apparently he thinks he can go neighborhood to neighborhood and promise different things thinking people do not know about the internet. Talk about whistle-stop tours. Know that AG is only the first stop in his lying to a larger elecorate than District 1 or the City. No-one has mentioned his larger ambitions. A reporter should ask."
41. La Playa Heritage wrote on February 18, 2008 11:32 PM:
"Neither Councilmembers Peters or Mainshein seem to understand State CEQA laws. The following link and attachment is our Formal Appeal to the City Council regarding the Navy Broadway Complex for February 26, 2008. We are only asking for a valid fault investigation to be submitted for review by the City and State Geologists in accordance with CEQA law. We are not asking for a full EIR. link We heard that the Department of Justice representative reneged on the promise of submitting a valid seismic study with the following explanation: "I have had the opportunity to discuss your January 25th proposal with the Navy. Each of the three studies you proposed that the Navy perform was closely considered; however, at this time the Navy does not believe that the studies are needed or can be justified." If you both really do not understand basic CEQA laws, please do not run."
42. Richard wrote on February 24, 2008 10:52 PM:
"Scott Peters is a phony and I won't vote for him, no matter what. Mike Aguirre has his faults, but it seems the City Council are in need of an antagonist questioning their motives, not a city attorney looking out for their backs as they would continue to make back-room deals. Long live the La Jolla seal colony --- vote NO on Scott Peters!"
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
