Comments so far on this story:

1. SDVoter wrote on May 7, 2008 5:27 PM:
"I won't believe it until I see It. Frye "votes yes on something" Nope, I just don't see her really supporting anything. Geeze, she won't even support Agurrie now. Maybe if Sanders was not mayor, then she votes NO on C. and her streak stands."

2. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 7, 2008 5:35 PM:
"It would seem to one that compliance with the US Comptroller's provisions of GAS's 07 revised Section 3.14 might fit well with the Kroll, SEC,IRS and those Oh so sensitive bonding types out in NYC.It would seem that a compliance with Fed guidelines would be sufficient,even in, America's Fund-less City. Are we not still part of the Republic? or are we divorced from that reality too?"

3. Christopher Hall wrote on May 7, 2008 9:22 PM:
"Bob and Jack, Perhaps in another city the SEC recommendations would be reasonably applied, but in San Diego, the SEC recommendations require way too much wisdom and integrity from our corrupt local establishment and their elected maids running the municipal government."

4. Erik B wrote on May 7, 2008 11:28 PM:
"For the life of me I just don't see why the current administration is fighting for appointment power. having a fully independent auditor, one willing to shout from the rooftops anything he found worrisome, would only be good for San Diego."

5. Charlie Pratt wrote on May 8, 2008 6:22 AM:
"It's a dog-bites-man story (not fox-bites-chicken) when insiders like Mr. Nelson want to dilute Mayor Sanders' accountability. A city that even the national media see mired in corruption needs an elected auditor who is accountable to the voters. Many of us who testified against Prop C before the City Council made this same point. When I went away to college, the first in my family to do, my grandfather admonished me not to come home "an educated damn fool." I know my grandfather would not refer to vague federal Guideline alternatives where common sense will serve. Mike Aguirre had it right: the best way to prevent fiscal shennanigans is to elect an auditor at a remove from political pressure by the usual suspects."

6. Black Sabbath wrote on May 8, 2008 7:43 AM:
"No matter how we get an auditor, some stink of politics will be involved. Ms. Frye knows this as well as the rest of us do. When we elected an "activist" councilperson as she is/was, we should expect endless bully pulpits stands. The chicken and fox sideshow seems silly and juvenile to me. I just want the potholes fixed and other matters attended to in all of the council districts. Leave the sideshows for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars."

7. Larry wrote on May 8, 2008 9:06 AM:
"Trusting Sanders with the bottom line fiscal responsibility for the city is like trusting Wimpy with your hamburgers. Then again, would we trust the goons on the city council instead? Make the position electable."

8. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 8, 2008 9:59 AM:
"7. Larry wrote on May 8, 2008 9:06 AM: "Trusting Sanders with the bottom line fiscal responsibility for the city is like trusting Wimpy with your hamburgers.....GOOD line there Larry! It is also 100% correct."

9. Caveat Emptor wrote on May 8, 2008 10:00 AM:
"Prop C is not the way to go to arrive at an Independent Auditor. Other routes to get there can be explored after June; there is no rush, no matter what proponents claim. The present system will hold until a better solution is reached. If Prop C passes, it will be set in stone in the City Charter; there will be no tweaking and no public accountability. No Mayor's Auditor! Official professional national boards of auditors -- I forget their fancy title -- recommend fully independent auditors for municipalities. That is the highest best practice for the profession. Why shouldn't San Diego follow that model, especially after our fiscal travail and political chicanery? The answer is we should. That might mean an elected auditor. Or it might mean a national headhunt, audit committee interviews and a recommendation for hiring then going to City Council for approval."

10. Andy Berg wrote on May 8, 2008 11:11 AM:
"Caveat Emptor, I hate to simply cut and paste one of my previous posts, but obviously you missed it, so here goes: This is direct from the Comptroller General of the United States GAS July 2007 Revision, section 3.14: "Audit organizations in government entities may also be presumed to be free from organizational impairments if the head of the audit organization meets any of the following criteria... c. appointed by someone other than a legislative body, so long as the appointment is confirmed by a legislative body and removal from the position is subject to oversight or approval by a legislative body, and reports the results of audits to and is accountable to a legislative body." Prop C is in full compliance with generally accepted auditing standards."

11. Andy Berg wrote on May 8, 2008 11:15 AM:
"Continued: I have the greatest respect for Councilmember Frye, but on this issue I would not substitute her judgement for that of the Comptroller General of the United States.""

12. Gordon Wagner wrote on May 8, 2008 12:35 PM:
"Donna Frye. I voted for her for mayor. And she won. Oh, wait, no, those little write-in bubbles weren't filled in quite right, according to state Republicans. Sorry. I see red whenever I read Donna Frye's name. She was robbed of office and the voters were denied their choice. An absurd technicality kept her from taking office. Anything she endorses I am for. Anyone opposing her is clearly a treacherous Republican dog. With fleas."

13. Andy Berg wrote on May 8, 2008 1:49 PM:
"Actually I am a Democrat and a also a big fan of Donna Frye. Unfortunately, she is wrong on this issue. Maybe this is simply the exception that proves the rule."

14. Andy Berg wrote on May 8, 2008 1:49 PM:
"Actually I am a Democrat and a also a big fan of Donna Frye. Unfortunately, she is wrong on this issue. Maybe this is simply the exception that proves the rule."

15. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 8, 2008 3:03 PM:
"I can think of no two more independent minded persons dressed for the game and ready to play for the Citizen team than Andrea Tevlin,the City's IBA and Phil Thalheimer of Mt Soledad and Jessica's Law.Given their track records and well publicized advocacy for our collective welfare I think it should be clear to all of us that Prop C has an abundance of the requisite merit, standards and critical covenants that this Sideshow only distracts us from concentrating upon.I too have been an admirer of Mrs Frye's and have said openly in the past that I believe her Council participation is indispensible to our fiscal recovery,however,on this Prop C,I for one think her ill-advised and hope she reconsiders her mistaken,albeit,prin position.Ms Tevlin's the real authoritative,truste and tested professional we should be listening to because she's been the epistomological wellspring in such matters as amply demonstrated in her tenure.IMHO"

16. Caveat Emptor wrote on May 8, 2008 3:12 PM:
"What compels Andy Berg to provide an opinion attributed to the Comptroller General of the United States and revised in 2007? Who is the Comptroller General of the United States? Would that be a Bush appointee? Was the language about "audit organizations in government entities" before 2007 more or less democratic and did it offer better or worse checks on runaway executive power? What has this to do with San Diego and San Diego circumstances? I don't want an Auditor who is "presumed to be free from organizational impairments." I want an Auditor that is fully independent of the Mayor -- something that Prop C continues to allow! Vote No on Prop C in June so that a better henhouse can be designed for our November ballot -- one that keeps management foxes from hiring and firing the Auditor!"

17. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 9, 2008 6:56 AM:
"Once again anonymous rants and personal attacks attempt to cloud the facts: The Comptroller of the USA is the Director of the Government Accountability Office,(GAO) founded in 1921,to ensure the fiscal and managerial accountability of the US Government. In 1998 then DEMOCRATIC President Bill Clinton appointed David Walker as the Comptroller.He served until 2/2008 when he was replace by Gene Dodaro who was confirmed in MARCH 08. GAO/gas's revised section 3.14 was implemented in JULY 07. FACT. On post #16 let the buyer beware!"

18. Fred Williams wrote on May 9, 2008 7:00 AM:
"The problem is that Sanders has lost the public's trust. Donna Frye still has that trust. When Sanders goes one way and Frye the other, we're going to trust Frye. When Sanders hires and defends clearly dishonest political hacks like Fred Sainz, how can we ever trust him to hire an honest auditor? Frye continues to work to heal our system, while Sanders engages in "delay, deny, and deceive". No on Prop. C."

19. Andy Berg wrote on May 9, 2008 8:30 AM:
"Fred Williams, you are correct that Ms. Frye has earned the public's trust. However, blind loyalty is what got this City in trouble in the first place. The public (you and me) need to educate ourselves on the issues and make decisions based on facts. Not only should you consider that Prop C meets all the requirements of the Kroll Report, SEC requests and generally accepting auditing practices, you should also consider the alternative. If Prop C fails, we are left with the current system in which the Mayor has full authority to HIRE AND FIRE the auditor. Everyone, including Ms. Frye, agrees that is bad policy."

20. JimG wrote on May 9, 2008 11:58 AM:
"The problem is not only that the Mayor has lost the public's trust, it is that the City government has lost our trust. They have been shown to be dishonest or deceitful on issue after issue. Until City Hall regains our trust, we should not allow them to appoint the auditor. It should be an elected position."

21. Andy Berg wrote on May 9, 2008 3:08 PM:
"JimG, No matter how much you want it to be, an elected auditor is not on the table for the 2008 election. Prop C is, and if it fails, the Mayor will continue to have the authority to hire AND FIRE the auditor. If Prop C passes, he can no longer fire the auditor. There will be an opportunity to ask the public if they want to have an elected auditor in the 2010 election. The question before us in 2008 is whether or not Prop C is better than what we have now. The answer is clearly "yes.""

22. Fred Williams wrote on May 10, 2008 6:07 AM:
"Mr. Berg, I agree that blind loyalty to the Padres and Chargers got us into bankruptcy, but Donna Frye's objections are quite reasonable. While you are correct that the current system is deplorable, the proposed "fix" is just another way of rigging the system to "dely, deny, and deceive" the citizens. Remember, this is the same Sanders who claims he's fixed the pension mess, but has actually done little to address the underlying issues...like pro-sports subsidies. I think only an elected auditor makes sense, not this flawed Proposition C, which thoughtful citizens strongly oppose."

23. Tom S. wrote on May 10, 2008 7:49 AM:
"Andy.. the opportunity would be in November. Doubtful Mayor would fire Luna before then -- and have another top management hire out the door? Sainz would think that looks too bad! The question before you is actually do you want this to be set in stone? Just because you think it's slightly better, that doesn't make it good public policy. Vote No on the Mayor's Auditor now, and do it right in November."

24. Hilly wrote on May 10, 2008 8:07 AM:
"Elected officials are too hard to get rid of. Aguirre, for example. I don't trust the City Council completely, but I trust the voters even less. Voters are SO ignorant when it comes to running a goverment. They can be swayed by the most insane campaigns. I will vote yes on C."

25. Fed Up but Hopeful wrote on May 10, 2008 4:43 PM:
"Vote No on Prop C because it will make permanent in the City Charter that San Diego mayors will control San Diego city auditors forevermore. Vote No on Prop C because it is the brain-child of this Mayor's own stacked "Charter Reform Committee" and termed-out insider friends on City Council. Vote No on Prop C because we need the gold standard for municipal auditor independence set by the professional Association of Local Government Auditors -- appointment by a majority of the legislative body, i.e., City Council. Vote No on Prop C because a better auditor proposal will go on the November ballot to satisfy the electorate's need for clear demarcation of responsibility between executive and legislative. We can get an appointed independent auditor with a term of 10 years, named by an accountable City Council majority and removed by a City Council supermajority of two-thirds."

26. Andy Berg wrote on May 10, 2008 9:31 PM:
"Tom... Charter changes are only set for as long as it takes to put another proposal on the ballot. As for an opportunity in November, it should be obvious to you that our current City Council seems very loathe to challenge the Mayor. I highly doubt, especially with the limited time available, that they would put anything on the November ballot. I still stand by comment that if Prop C fails, we will be stuck with the current system until 2010 or beyond."