By Robert Davis, Point Loma

City governments should not operate behind closed doors, which is exactly why San Diego needs Aguirre. If a different city attorney were to slam the doors shut on open government, I hope someone would come forward to challenge that action. The city requires constant oversight to keep it from sliding back to the secretive decision-making style that earned San Diego the title of Enron by the Sea.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 12:06 pm

Don't worry Mr Davis, the keepers of the city government's 'dirty little secrets' told Mike nothing--at least nothing he can use against them. What I'm worried about is: if Mike Aguirre is not reelected, who will represent the interests of the citizens of San Diego in the city government?

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 12:43 pm

Keep dreaming RD, because Mike is not going anywhere, the only things that will be "leaving" are the scam pensions of the PD/FD. And when the pensions ae tossed in BK I am throwing a party-and you're invited.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 12:55 pm

Mr. Davis: Don't worry, sir. If CA Aguirre is not re-elected, you will have all the bad apples you're yearning for joining you in the barrel. If you resent Aguirre, you must be in love with the jerks that screwed up the pension to the tune of $1.4bil. Or you're a buddy of Aaron Feldman and Sanders and therefore disagree with Aguirre's having Sun Road do the right thing. Or you resent Aguirre's saving the City $100Mil by takig De La Fuente to court. Or perhaps it's because he had Kroll return $4Mil. to the City? Just what are you lookin for Mr. Davis? Another Golding or Murphy? I'll bet you voted for Jerry

Posted by Pietro | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 1:37 pm

Billy Blowhard Butkis Henry and all the others that worship Aguirre will you please shut your pieholes when Aguire is ousted from the CA position? BBH has been soo soo wrong in many of his previous predictions, I truly believe HELL will a have a mean temperature of 72 degrees farenheit if Aguirre is re-elected. Aguirre may have been right in his "fight for the people of San Diego", but having him as our advocate is like, well hiring BBH to be a cop or a fireman-absolutly ludicrious and irresponsible!

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 1:51 pm

Hey folks I agree we need transparency at all levels of government. Please remember WE elect representatives to run government for US. During Mr. Aguirre’s service he has uncovered plenty of questionable and unethical behaviors. And someday some of those acts may be found to be illegal. (It hasn’t happened yet.) But that’s not the point. My question is about the knowledge Mr. Aguirre has gained during his tenure. Are there ethical issues where the City, as the client, and its Attorney, Michael Aguirre, have this privilege? Would Mr. Aguirre breech the Attorney-Client privilege if he decided to bring, or participate in, litigation against the City of San Diego. Isn’t the confidentially of the Attorney-Client communication one of the highest ethical duties and responsibilities of lawyers?

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 2:18 pm

Pietro - sir you're mixed up. Mr. Aguirre did not initiate the litigation against DeLa Fuente. His office did not win that judgment, outside counsel was responsible for the outcome. Kroll has not returned a penny $20 million the city paid them. Vincent and Elkins settled with outside counsel who we, the taxpayers, paid a hefty contingency fee for handling the case. Mr. Aguirre did get us back our parking spaces in Balboa Park when the City tried giving them to a business for free and that was good. No sir, what I am looking for is ethical behavior where the taxpayers will not be on the hook for potentially more litigation costs, more settlement costs from an attorney who has a well documented history of litigating issues. Do you want him using the knowledge gained while working as City Attorney used against us?

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 2:36 pm

Billy we'll know soon enough if Mike survives re-election. But if he doesn't win, I'd be more that happy to treat you to a wonderful steak dinner at Donovans’ downtown restaurant to console you in your time of need.

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 2:47 pm

All the taxpaying citizens of San Diego should insert themselves into City affairs. It is the public's City and the Public's money. Public participation by citizens should be encouraged. Since 1914, the City of San Diego Seal and Official Motto is Semper Vigilans, which is Latin for Ever Vigilant. link Mr. Aguirre saved the 30 foot Coastal Height limit and Environmentally Sensitive Lands from Mayor Sanders Density Bonus proposal. As City Attorney Casey Gwinn stated that the City of San Diego does not actually own the City streets and public land because a map was not filed in time in the 1800's. link Multi-millions of dollars of public Coastal beach access land has been saved by Mr. Aguirre legal work. Mr. Aguirre is the people's champion.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 3:13 pm

Because Mike Aguirre can't live without the limelight, he will constantly be filing motions as he did before. It will cost the city money because the city will have to pay our attorneys to work on the case, but we should get most back since Aguirre will most likely lose, as usual.

Posted by Fran | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 3:14 pm

While the comments above are interesting and there is truth in some of them, Aguirre is bad news for the City of San Diego. I haven't done the calulations but I'm pretty sure he has cost the City more than he has recovered in the multitude of frivolous lawsuits he has brought and all of the outside lawyers hired because he won't or can't do his job. Most companies, even the good honest ones, are very reluctant to do business with the CSD because of his itimidating manner and tactics. Lastly, consider the fact that our city government has no reliable "in house" resource for legal advice. Think about running a large corporation (i.e.-the City) without your own attorney. Absurd!

Posted by SMF | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 3:25 pm

BBH, I seem to remember that you predicted Aguirre would win the primary outright with over 50% of the vote. Clearly, you were out of touch with reality then, and you are out of touch now. This city has clearly had enough of Aguirre's grandstanding and incompetence.

Posted by BBH is Dreaming | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 5:38 pm

wake and smell the coffee/ aguirre has directly returned over 20 mil. to the city .what do you think a sanders endorsed goldsmith will do...NOTHING.oh,yeah bout roque..150 million in savings and a lot more cash soonfrom an insurance company who failed to properly handle the roque case. my choice....AGUIRRE.

Posted by rat | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 5:56 pm

To get back to the original point of the letter. There actually are laws to prohibit Mr. Aguirre after he leaves office [whether termed out or not reelected] from using privileged information he received while in office as the City's attorney- [or even disclosing it to someone else who might sue.] Those laws could carry criminal penalties. Also, though he disagrees, the City is Mr. Aguirre's client and I expect he might have a real problem explaining a lawsuit against a former client to the state bar, which could, if they don't act before he leaves office, suspend or take his license.

Posted by historian | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 7:03 pm

I don't know where my "modest proposal" letter went in response to Robert Davis' hogwash -- I guess Goebbels IS alive, just as "Edward" frequently complains -- but "historian" is out in far right field dreaming that the State Bar will "suspend or take" Aguirre's law license. It will never happen. The State Bar "investigation" into Aguirre is nothing more than "confidential" election-year flak that goes up in a puff of smoke.Reprehensible? Yes. Substantive? No. Dream on.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 8:48 pm

12. BBH is Dreaming wrote on June 25, 2008 5:38 PM: "BBH, I seem to remember that you predicted Aguirre would win the primary outright with over 50% of the vote........ ACTUALLY I said 40-50%, and I was close. If it was a TWO WAY race, not 5, Mike would have won outright. BTW, I do dream, and MY DREAMS come true!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 8:58 pm

Historian: Thanks for your comments. But does this mean "someone" has to file a complaint with the state bar before they may act?

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Certain people on this blog said that "KFC Sanders was done in this town" yet he won convincingly over Francis.

Posted by Beamnn | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 11:29 pm

Well the spin never stops...especially on the Roque De La Fuente case. In comment 13 above "Rat" says there was "150 million in savings". Oh, where exactly did we save? If you mean we saved paying a judgement found against the city I suppose you're correct. But to be clear the city did not earn money here, the Appelate court dismissed a liabilty judged by a previous jury award. Our City Attorney's office had very little to do with it. The De La Fuente appeal was won by outside counsel, not Mr. Aguirre for a huge fee, costing the taxpayers plenty. Was the original case mismanged by the previous C.A.? You bet, I'll grant you that.

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 5:39 am

Mike is gone come December......but fear not, his legacy will live on long after he is gone and God knows it will take decades to pay off his hundreds of court losses as well as the humiliation and shame this City faced from him...... But, down the road, I can see the City hiring his new firm of Aguirre & Nifong to do some outsourced consulting....

Posted by SoOverNifongofthewest | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 7:16 am

For all you arm-chair lawyers: Debate is healthy and I wish you all well. Hope you remain the same after Mike Aguirre, an ethical, honest, for the people politician is re-elected. You must believe that miracles do happen; Sanders was re-elected!

Posted by Pietro | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 1:02 pm

The people of San Diego are directly responsible for the whole budget and pension crisis. Who else voted in the numbskull politicians that executed it? Therefore, the citizens should have to pay for all the nasty consequences, including higher taxes, fees, and lower services. Furthermore, you can bet the electorate will allow this kind of fiasco again and again, no matter what's written in the City Charter, the Bylaws or whoever gets elected. Reality gives no quarter:the Electorate is to blame and always will be.

Posted by Richard M. Dell'Orfano | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 1:04 pm

Can somebody please show these marginally awake people a balance sheet showing how much Mike has lost the City of San Diego compared to what he has reportedly won? He is a looser. He will continue to be a looser. He has cost San Diego Millions of dollars. How do the people that support him justify the $128,000 he paid an expert witness who summarized someone else’s work and submitted a one (1) page document in one of his many failed law suits? Did you forget that this $128,000 a page consultant was his campaign finance chairman? Snap out of it.

Posted by Rhino | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 2:42 pm

BBH said: "ACTUALLY I said (Aguirre would get) 40-50% (in the primary), and I was close." Uhhhh, 29% is NOT EVEN REMOTELY close to 40-50%. Not only that, but he came in 2nd Place as an incumbant. Certainly, it is possible Mikey will do what no other incumbant with such a poor showing in a primary has ever done to get re-elected - but the odds are not in his favor. And YOU have not been a very good predictor so far. But then again, you never know.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 2:46 pm

Since when was coming in second with 29% "close" to 40-50%? In a two way race, the polls had Goldsmith winning against Aguirre outright in June. Even Scott Peters had a good shot over Aguirre outright in June. BBW, your dreams are this city's nightmares. Thankfully, the nightmare will be over in November.

Posted by BBH is Dreaming | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 4:48 pm

Now that Scott Peters has been buried politically, aggrieved Aguirre-haters are trying to devise a balance sheet of financial wins and losses in the City Attorney's office -- a first in my memory and something that was never done when the legally challenged Casey GwInn was our gatekeeper. They are also trying to devise a damning roster of consultants vs. in-house legal work to get Shorty, and they dream of filing personal beefs -- um, briefs -- with the State Bar to do Mikey a coup de grace. With orchestral accompaniment provided by Bob Kittle at the Union-Tribune where the news staff apparently has nothing better to do these days than REARRANGE THE COMICS INTO CATEGORIES! It is summer, zealots: lighten up.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 5:35 pm

Like I said, if it were a two way race Goldsmith would have been history. Goldie outspent Mike 8 to 1, and barely beat Mike- by less than 3 points in a five way race. Once Mike kicks in his campaign and $$$, Goldie is toast. As for Col. Sanders winning re election, that was a big mistake, and this City will regret it (I already do!).

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 6:22 pm

Goldsmith got more votes than 3 incumbents (Aguirre, Peters, Mainschein). How many times does an incumbent lose in San Diego, let alone three?!?! He was outspent by the Peters and Mainschein teams. Aguirre has had 4 yrs of press conferences, the public knows him. Yet Goldsmith still beat out Aguirre. Not only that, but 70% of the electorate voted AGAINST the incumbent. And yes, BBH, to argue that 70% voted for someone other than Goldsmith completely misses the point and ignores political history. When someone is satisfied with the job performance of the incumbent, they don't vote for one of the opponents. I still think Aguirre will put up a good fight this fall, and the election will be closer than what would have been in a two way race in June, but I would not bet on his re-election.

Posted by BBH is Dreaming | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 7:16 pm

BBH Is Dreaming -- How come I have to keep saying this about the Second California Primary we just enjoyed? Only GOP and Dem stalwarts turned out to vote -- a near-record few of them at that -- and so you have the good Goldsmith showing, as well as the re-election of lackluster Jerry Sanders and his ABC propositions that allow him to control the city auditor. When November comes, and the entire world is voting for Barack Obama, you will see a very different result for Mike Aguirre. He will win. Because he's the best man for the job.The people understand that: as some wag said here, Aguirre may sometimes be a jerk, but he is OUR jerk.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 8:47 pm

Yesterday, June 26, one 'informed' quasi- lawyer/ politician brought up the name of Casey Gwynn. Has anyone wondered what he is now doing to earn a living? Well, after departing the CA's office he was 'employed' by Bonnie Dumanis, one of his alter egos. With a failed side run to grasp the Family Justice Center(FJC) from Aguirre (for Gwynn) by two members of County government, Gwynn is now employed by the YWCA in a non-lawyerly position [UT article]. However, now the YWCA is trying [with Sanders"] help to take over the FJC for guess who? The magic circle continues to work.

Posted by Pietro | reply to this comment
June 27, 2008 12:09 pm

Hello Mr. Dell'Orfano: I partially agree with you about voter responsibility. Unfortunately, voters are kept in the dark about what is really going on in city government, and their choices are limited. Did you ever read "The Wisdom of Crowds"? Research indicates that if you ask a whole lot of people a specific question, the people who know nothing about the issue will cancel each other out (their votes will be divided evenly among the choices), and the people who know what they're doing will decide the contest and come up with the right answer. This model requires that no one be allowed to influence anyone else's vote. I look forward to the time when we'll all vote by computer on a given day, and we won't have to rely so much on representatives who have to buy and sell favors to get elected.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
June 28, 2008 10:31 pm

History shows Mr. Fed Up, when voting in a presidental election year, San Diego County as a whole including the City has voted conservative. Mc Cain will receive more votes than Obama and Aguirre will be slaughtered by Goldsmith. Even those diehard democrats will vote for Mr. Goldsmith. They are tired of Aguirre's blunders and his reckless spending in frivolous lawsuits. Aguirre's record speaks for itself and even those that do not stay current with San Diego Politics can see what a mistake it would be to re-elect Aguirre. Here is another historical fact: If BBH offers an opinion or makes a prediction, you can count on the opposite as being the better choice!

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
June 29, 2008 9:36 am

Pietro, some history is in order here. The FJC was never Aguirre's to take away in the first place. Second, why are you and others so against moving the FJC to the YWCA? Are you so invested in the FJC, that you want to see it stay with the City? Are you against the City saving money? Or, do you just dislike Gwinn so much, that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? I'll admit that its obvious some business was not down during any official council meeting. But let's be realistic, not all City planning and negotiations can be held by committee. Nothing would get done. Just as long as it's noticed and brought before council, that's what I care about. And if this deal can save the City some bucks while continuing to do what the FJC does, and ruls followed, so what?

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
June 29, 2008 10:27 am

Pietro, some history is in order here. The FJC was never Aguirre's to take away in the first place. Second, why are you and others so against moving the FJC to the YWCA? Are you so invested in the FJC, that you want to see it stay with the City? Are you against the City saving money? Or, do you just dislike Gwinn so much, that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? I'll admit that its obvious some business was not down during any official council meeting. But let's be realistic, not all City planning and negotiations can be held by committee. Nothing would get done. Just as long as it's noticed and brought before council, that's what I care about. And if this deal can save the City some bucks while continuing to do what the FJC does, and ruls followed, so what?

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
June 29, 2008 10:27 am

#30--Mr. Gwinn also collects a 6 figure retirement from the City of San Diego.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 30, 2008 8:39 am

Rockon: You missed my point.But first; the FJC was born under Casey Gwynn when he was the CA. In fact, it was known that he devoted more time to the FJC than he did to his elected position.When Aguirre was elected,the FJC stayed with the office. The point I was making, which you did not comprehend, was the cronyism between Gwynn and Dumanis, et.al.Did it not strike you as strange that the YWCA hired Gwynn (after being let go by the DA) then the YWCA makes an argument to the City for the City to release the FJC to the auspices of the YWCA, arguing how much money they can save the City? If you believe there were no secret meetings between the principals, I have a bridge for sale. ROCK ON!

Posted by Pietro | reply to this comment
June 30, 2008 12:11 pm

I am amazed how these threads ALWAYS seem to stray off topic. Sometimes like this way off topic. In reading the original letter, this was about ethical behavior in a POST by Mr. Aguirre after leaving the City Attorney's Office. It also seem to be about Attorney-Client communications, knowlege and privileges gained between a client and his former attorney. Since BBH and others who are attorneys maybe they would be so kind to comments about those rights and responsibiltiies in the context outlined in the original letter.

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
June 30, 2008 12:16 pm

Okay Wondering here you go. Just as clear a mud. Attorney/Client privilage on fresh cases is a slippery slope after that relationship has ended. Attorneys take an oath to behave ethically as members of the court. Ethics however are always subjective and the rules of fairness are ruled on by the court on a case by case basis.

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
July 1, 2008 11:44 pm

38. Caitlin wrote on July 1, 2008 11:44 PM: ...... Ethics however are always subjective and the rules of fairness are ruled on by the court on a case by case basis....... IF you think couts rule on fairness, you just fell off the lawyer Banana Boat! Judges, especially in the state system, are very biased, and will bend rules in any direction they have to to get their desired outcome.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
July 2, 2008 6:07 pm

Billy can you explain "bending" of the rules in the context of my letter? I know you support Mr. Aguirre, but I am curious about the use of knowledge he's gained as city attorney in future litigations. It's my understanding that the attorney client privilege is the most defended and guarding rights. And, if an attorney breeches the privilege and it's proved to the satifaction of the Bar, disbarrment is the typical remedy. Care to comment?

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
July 3, 2008 9:07 am

Ugh!!

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
July 6, 2008 3:56 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.