By Donna Frye, San Diego

Once again Mrs Frye practices a pedagogy worthy of a Professor of Rhetoric and were we in Church a chorus of Teach and Amen would punctuate her remarks.I wish the Gentle Lady would grace these pages more often.We're always learning from her. What concerns me is that we're in the process of tailoring,once again,standards of behavior that are unique only to San Diego.If the rest of the Republic,save the 6 cities alluded to by Mrs Frye,are compliant with the GAO/gas and they're auditing criteria/credentials result in favorable municipal bonding what is so special about SD that we have to practice this over-compensation?If Kroll,the SEC,the IRS and,one assumes Sarbanes-Oxly,are satisfied with the GAO standards on auditors wouldn't simple and conscientious compliance with those accepted and requited procedures put us back into the good graces of the powers that be?Not to beg the question but what is it that requires this seeming over-kill and expensive re-balloting?

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 8:42 am

I am uncertain who opponents propose select the auditor. If it's not the mayor then who does Frye et. al suggest have that authority?

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 9:06 am

Who was guarding the hen house when a non driver took a $9000 per year car allowance ? Or when a water saving councilmember became a million gallon man ? Or when another councilmember illegally removed the lock on his water meter ? And so it goes. Tell me how you can prevent politics and corruption from not being bedfellows in Amercia's Finest City ?

Posted by Black Sabbath | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 9:15 am

Under the 1931 City Charter, Section 39, the City Council did appoint the City Auditor and Comptroller. This system of checks and balances completely failed and contributed to the financial meltdown at City Hall. With the passage of Proposition F in 2004, the voters changed the appointment of this position from the City Council to the new Mayor/CEO. Prop. C is just a compromise evolution of a previously approved charter change by the voters.

Posted by Adrian Kwiatkowski | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 10:05 am

We don't know if an auditor appointed by the mayor would be acceptable to the SEC, rating agencies or bond market, but we do know that we cannot trust our city government (remember Enron by the Sea, "climate of corruption," etc.?), at this time, to act in the interests of the citizens of San Diego. This is why I'm voting against Prop. C.--we need an elected auditor, that will work for and answer to the people, every four years.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 10:22 am

Donna Frye's thinking is every bit as clear as her writing. On the other hand, Mr. Griffiths reasoning is convoluted like his writing. Jack, what is it about the problem of the Mayor appointing the person that would audit him or her that you don't get? This is particularly true given San Diego's "climate of corruption" that Steve K rightly points out. Like Steve K, I oppose Prop. C and would prefer to elect the auditor.

Posted by Charlie Pratt | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 12:19 pm

The SEC's own monitor, Stanley Keller, put his stamp of approval on Prop C in his annual report, dated March 2008. He says Prop C is a sufficient step--among many more needed--to get us back into the bond market. If it is good enough for the SEC's overseer, then it should be good enough for us. Reform cannot wait! Why all this stalling when San Diego is crumbling beneath us? I am voting YES on PROP C and urge fellow San Diegans to join me. Let's put our city on the path to fiscal reform.

Posted by CD 1 Resident | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 1:29 pm

Adrian, the point you fail to mention (or don't get?) is that under the 1931 Charter, the City Council was the Executive Branch of the City. That was the problem. The Executive Branch was appointing the auditor that oversaw the Executive Branch. Now under Prop F, the Mayor is the Executive Branch, and now you want him to appoint the auditor that oversees the Executive Branch. And the result will be the same. Prop C is more of the same. Vote No on C.

Posted by Theresa Quiroz | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 2:08 pm

Donna and Mike are the only two people who have any integrity of honesty at City Hall. Anything they say I will jump on board with them, and as usual, Donna is right again.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 2:21 pm

CD1resident--Just because it's good enough for SEC's Stanley Keller is absolutely NO reason for San Diegian's to fall in place. The SEC/Kroll Report let the people down severely by not bringing charges against certain City Council individuals. I'm voting NO on C because we aren't going to get real reform until the residents control their government again.

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 2:30 pm

Theresa, the Executive Branch under the 1931 Charter was the City Manager not the City Council.

Posted by Adrian Kwiatkowski | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 3:16 pm

Sorry CD--the city council, which included the mayor, at the time signed off on bogus financial statements that were intended to fool the voters as well as the SEC--what's good enough for Mr. Keller isn't good enough for me.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 3:37 pm

we should have an elected auditor, not subject to term limits, with 6 year terms; we should pay the auditor something on the level of 125% of the salary of a superior court judge; the budget of the auditor should be no less than 95% of the budget of the auditors of the largest 6 cities in the country. All these provisions should be in the city charter and not amendable except by a 2/3 vote. Why all these precautions? Because Jack, San Diego's history is "special"; the goal ought not to be what will it take to get back into the bond market. The goal ought to be: what process can we adopt which will scare the living crap out of the next generation of Michael Zucchets, Ed Ryans, and Jay Goldstones? I think an auditor who will think nothing of telling the

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 3:57 pm

The ballot analysis doesn't state who performs periodic performance evaluations of the auditor. If the intent in Prop C is that it's the Mayor's job (with no right of appeal), then this is yet another example of encroachment by the executive branch into the affairs of the legislative branch. This practice was just challenged regarding Redevelopment Reorganization. Even though state law does not put Redevelopment in the hands of the executive branch, the Mayor proposes to supervise the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, i.e the City Council. Let's maintain proper checks and balances for good government and vote No on Prop C.

Posted by Kathleen MacLeod | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 4:02 pm

nelson: I agree. The SEC should prosecute the councilmembers...no question about it! And it may yet take action. My point is, however, that the "to do" list is non-negotiable. If the SEC--the agency that is the boss of us now--approves Prop C's constructions, then it behooves us to act accordingly. That's why I think we should vote YES on PROP C.

Posted by CD 1 Resident | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 4:54 pm

A "No on C" vote basically means "The mayor should not appoint his or her own auditor". That simple. In the recent Enron-like history of this City, (remember the auditing/management relationship of Enron?), isn't it common sense to defeat this flawed proposition? No on C = not the mayor appointee. Then we'll have a discussion for a November measure about council-appointed or elected - and the people can vote on that.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 6:09 pm

It must totally bum Donna out to have BBH supporting her position.

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 7:26 pm

Mr Keller is not the "SEC's own monitor"; he is a private attorney, hired by the City at $700. per hour to comply with the SEC; he was selected by Mayor Sanders and approved by the city council.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 8:25 pm

One need only look at the Bush Administration's judicial appointments to see how easy it is to stack the deck. If the Mayor has people he really wants as auditor he simply presents alternative candidates that he knows the City Council will never approve. Then, as time is running out, and a choice soon needs to be made, he presents the candidates he really wants. The City Council, like the spineless Democratic Congress, looks at all of the choices and picks the Mayor's friends. The Council says, "Well, we didn't really like any of the choices so we had to look at what was presented and pick the lessor of the evils." If you don't think that this is exactly what will happen...

Posted by Brian C | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 10:16 pm

When we see well known city hall insiders like Adrian Kwiatkowski supporting Proposition C, the only reasonable course is to stand up in opposition. It's the same insiders who got us into this mess who now claim Prop. C is the solution? Hogwash! Vote NO on C.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 5:36 am

Donna, what good are any of you when you simply can't be trusted to do even the most simple tasks? You state we should wait for another proposition in Novemeber so we can get it right. Okay....maybe..but, how long have you been in office? Have you been really, really busy and simply didn't have time to address this until now? Or, or you just giving us more of the same obstructionist tactics with no substance to follow. I hear a lot of complaining and the sky is falling wailing in your editorial but, absolutely not even an offer of an actual solution. After November, you will be the last of the scandal ridden council that needs to go. Maybe you should do all of San Diego a favor and resign now.

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 5:55 am

Props A & B ended up on the ballot because the geniuses in the mayor's office (A=Sanders, B=Murphy) rushed policy thru initiative down the council and voters throats. They didn't think through that maybe Wackenhut could be doing patrol duty, or their would be confusion about sunsetting strong mayor. Prop C is flawed moreso - the argument that it's better than now and can be further fixed - why can't they submit a proposition that "the best" it can be now then? What if it never does get fixed? You'll have any mayor's appointed auditor political stoogie cookin' the books. For 10 years. Can you imagine, today we could still have a Golding stoogie in there? Tell the Mayor and Council majority to think through the policy before proposing to the voters (that would be asking a lot.) NO ON C!

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 6:54 am

Oh, and didn't Keller completely forget to file his city financial disclosure statements on time? And you think this guy is a model authority for auditing and financial disclosure issues? This guy is more wasted consulting $$$$$$ for the City, possibly doing more harm than good.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 7:00 am

I think a key point is being overlooked here: There is no proposal on the November ballot to make the auditor an elected official. Likewise, there is no proposal on the November ballot to have the auditor appointed by the City Council. There is only Prop C which would take away the Mayor's current authority to fire the auditor. The passage of Prop C would also please the SEC and by extension, Wall Street. This would allow us to get back into the bond market at more favorable rates. If any of you want to improve upon Prop C, Donna Frye can put a charter amendment initiative on the ballot in 2010. For the next two years, however, your choice is Prop C or the current system. The choice really is not that complicated.

Posted by Andy Berg | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 7:46 am

It looks like the community of voice correspondents understands why we need to Vote No on Prop C, even though the opinion of the city's well-paid SEC monitor, Mr. Keller, thinks it's just fine. Thank you very much, Steve K., for reminding us that Mr. Keller is paid to have his views aired as Gospel. Keep the fox out of the henhouse. Vote No on Prop C and get the "best practices" solution for the city in November --an independent Auditor.

Posted by Fed Up but Hopeful | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 8:57 am

It looks like the community of voice correspondents understands why we need to Vote No on Prop C, even though the city's well-paid SEC monitor, Mr. Keller, thinks it's just fine. Thank you very much, Steve K., for reminding us that Mr. Keller is paid to have his views aired as Gospel. Keep the fox out of the henhouse. Vote No on Prop C and get the "best practices" solution for the city in November --an independent Auditor.

Posted by Fed Up but Hopeful | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 8:57 am

The issue is to satisfy not just the bonding and financing authorities whom I'm certain are watching this debate play out with great interest but to rectify,in an orderly and constituent driven process,that which has afflicted SD over these many years.Berg's argument and Kwiatowski's points are well taken that Prop C is the best we've got in the short term and logical in an orderly evolution towards something better should the new crop of legislative Council members,thru us,deem it necessary down the road.In the short term SD needs to demonstrate decisive action in compliance.Our economy's in a slump and seems to be getting worse.There are thousands who will/could benefit from an increase in infrastructure financing and we need to do whatever is necessay to facilitate that funding and shore up both the defered maintenance benefits and keep people working and buying.Prop C seems the best before us NOW.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 10:43 am

Mikey must have written this letter for the Surfer Chick. She can't think on her own, really. Watch her at Council, and watch Mikey give her signals.

Posted by SayWhat? | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 11:40 am

I keep asking myself and others why is the lobbyist crowd pushing so hard for Prop. C? Just take a look at this thread--it is full of lobbyists pumping up this good government nonsense. I love the Keller and accepted auditing practices pitches. Every corporation that engaged in book cooking was audited by accepted auditing practices and by companies with national reputations. So, what happened? What happened was that independence was compromised by greed, relationships, and power struggles. Same things apply towards Enron-By-The-Sea. Prop. C is the sanctioning of auditing by a small group of people who have various reasons to manipulate financial disclosures. The folks in this city shouldn't tolerate this audit for convenience program anymore than they should accept getting an airport at Miramar rammed down their throats. What's next, selling San Diegans sunshine?

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 12:43 pm

...and a key point missed by proponents is that no Nov article is on the ballot because we're waiting the outcome of the voters' say on Prop C! Prop C was initiated by the Council majority (5-3 vote) in March. Less than 3 months before the election. A legislative-initiate act can be introduced in June, July or August after the defeat of Prop C. And the majority would be wiser to do so. Wall Street and the SEC aren't going to roll over on June 4 and declare everything dandy. We STILL have a 2007 audit to be prepared, and other delayed requests that are holding those actions up... thanks to Sanders. Prop C is not stopping the critical path - and Wall Street will be happier we passed a resolution in November that offers even a better spirit of auditor independence.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 3:52 pm

17. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 9, 2008 8:26 PM: "It must totally bum Donna out to have BBH supporting her position.".......lol ... Are you kidding me Algernon ?? The BBH endorsement is one of the most powerful in the City!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 10, 2008 4:56 pm

I am voting against Prop. C, but I have concerns with an elected auditor. I don't think our campaign laws are strong enough to provide true independence in any elected office. If Prop C is not approved and we do go to an elected auditor, it will be interesting to follow the money.

Posted by Andrew | reply to this comment
May 11, 2008 8:43 pm

Dear Editor: I have the unpleasant experience, to be part, about the bias, unethical corruption, from some local attorneys, and judges from the San Diego Superior Court, still the same issue: money talks. Our Judicial System is getting as corrupt as Mexico and other Latinoamerica countries, except here is on a higher level,and more cover-up (temporary). Onca again "JUSTICE AND LAW" are two different way opposite directions such: day and night. I would like if you start exposing this kind of corrupt, member of the government, starting with the mayor Jerry Sanders, and following all the way to the White House.

Posted by Manuel Sillas | reply to this comment
May 13, 2008 9:40 am

Manuel....if you actually have a point, maybe you should explain it to someone and have them help you write it. Your senseless rant makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
May 15, 2008 9:05 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.