Thats fine. Fire her and pay. Then, the people of San Diego should petion City Attorney Aguirre to file a civil lawsuit under the Citizens of San Diego against Smith for misrepresentation of funds, embezzlement, whatever, for the amount she got way with. Let her have her day in court. If her pay is warranted, it will proven warranted. If not we stopped the corruption immediately and regained our tax money back for what it could be best used for.

Posted by Marc Godbold | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 4:05 am

I'd say Smith is smarter than the people who drew up her contract and approved it. I have to say, I'm jealous. No one would ever pay me to be fired.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 4:28 am

Exactly! Once she gets canned she can forfeit her termination bonus in exchange for the money she has to pay back our city. Sweet employment agreement too. A starting salary of $82,639, 13 sick days, 20 vacation days plus all holidays, monthly car allowance, fringe benefits, expenses for HER professional development and of course section 705 indemnification provision, Voice, can you get a copy of her resume so we can see her qualifications? What's in her performance reviews? It's time for the city to get rid of all these pseudo non-profits that do all these wonderful things for high prices and hold everybody harmless for their actions! Lastly, why was the amendment granted and when (not dated?

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 5:35 am

So--we thought the city was negotiating excessive benefits for civil service employees. Why would the city agree to pay 200-300k, if someone is fired from a government funded agency?

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 8:46 am

What is the definition of "gross misconduct"? Although illegal or dangerous acts committed in the workplace are likely to qualify as gross misconduct, the acts need not be criminal or otherwise unlawful in nature. In some instances, even acts that occur away from the workplace have qualified as gross misconduct. A definition widely used by the courts goes something like this: Acts of gross misconduct are intentional, wanton, willful, deliberate, reckless, or in deliberate indifference to an employer's interest. Often, acts that will prompt an employer to terminate an employee are those done in deliberate violation of the employer's known standards. So do the people think she crossed threshold?

Posted by Basic C | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 9:20 am

It's gonna be Jose Betancourt, part 2. They're gonna threaten to fire, she's gonna threaten to sue, they're gonna negotiate for a month and she'll get between six months worth of pay and $100,000. The fact that she hasn't said anything publicly clearly indicates that she has a good lawyer advising her.

Posted by Jesus Christ, son of god | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 9:46 am

Do we expect Smith to resign voluntarily ? She probably will defy all logic and go after the money, and not step down, even though she has been caught with her "hand in the cookie jar" so to speak. Since the evidence points to "gross misconduct" at the very least, it would appear that the Mayor and city council can and should terminate her WITH CAUSE, making it clear that she has violated the terms of her employment contract. That would look REALLY bad on her resume ! The Voice has done a huge service to the taxpayers of San Diego by unearthing this terrible SHAM. Next - void the terms of that Valencia Business Park shoddy deal.

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 11:53 am

Worse than that Scott. Fred the Mouth Sainz made some statements that were not the most advisable if you are going into a wrongful termination suit. I am NOT defending C. smith but am noting that with the board unable/unwilling to exert proper oversight I am not sure that it is a slam dunk that a court will find that Smith's actions are beyond the pale. So...you need to be awfully careful about what you say because...in a termination suit the aggreeved can allege tha the statements made about him/her so sullied their reputation as to make it difficult for them to find new employment. If you have been keeping up on your miracosta college saga you know that the number one rule when firing an an employee - keep your mouth SHUT.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 2:15 pm

However, Scott, as Donohue and Carliss reported, "The [Smith] contract states that no severance will be paid if she is terminated "due to acts of dishonesty, gross misconduct or fraud."" Based on the extensive Voice reporting on Carolyn Smith's misconduct, I believe any attorney worth half his/her salt could demonstrate one of the conditions that would disallow her receiving the severance. In fact, I really think an attorney could prove all three exceptions.

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 4:31 pm

except where ms. smith is terminated "due to acts of dishonesty, gross misconduct or fraud." she qualifies on all 3 counts. fire her immediately.

Posted by the truth | reply to this comment
July 19, 2008 6:50 pm

She does qualify for fraud. City should stand ground, not give her a dime. Let her try to sue - City should countersue to recoup excess bonuses illegally obtained, then feds should prosecute the fraud and seek reasonable fine and/or jail time. This isn't a trough to feed at, and it's time to punish these little piggies.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
July 20, 2008 10:39 am

For God's sake, lets not let Mikey handle the case. We want to win this one!

Posted by dorod | reply to this comment
July 20, 2008 4:36 pm

DOROD, truer words could not be spoken.....I could see Mikey blow this one as his swan song going out....then call it a victory for the people of San Diego because Smith only got $199,999.99 instead of the $200k she might have!

Posted by Kool Aide | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 4:11 am

Better Mikey than Casey! Look what he did or didn't do for our city.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 6:25 am

Smith's contract does NOT allow for $200K-$300K for being terminated for CAUSE. In addition the City Attorney should sue he but off civilly nad then file misdemeanor embezzlment and fraud charges against here-because we know the DA won't do jack.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 8:19 am

ARREST her and watch how it all sorts out.

Posted by Don't fire.... | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 12:42 pm

I do not believe anything will happen - look back at all the things that have taken place in San Diego over the last twenty years. I think Self-Monitoring is kind of like asking Internal Affairs to investigate and find some wrong-doing being done by one of our own ‘brothers in blue,’ or a financial auditor to be truly ‘objective’ when reviewing the records of people who are paying them the big bucks…, go figure. Na, I think time will pass and nothing will happen, and the next scandal will make the public forget about all the past scandals. San Diego = Same-O same-o

Posted by Same-O same-o | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 1:11 pm

BBH in post 15 "DA won't do jack." true that

Posted by Same-O same-o | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 1:41 pm

BBH, slow down, tiger. Lets not rush into things that will only cause embarrassment later. I agree that Smith has some serious issues here, and I expect in the final analysis there very well could be criminal charges. But misdemeanors? Please. Give the DA a chance to see if there are any charges that will actually have some teeth before Aguirre rides in on his selective-open-gover white horse. Hey! Maybe he'll have Lepine be the special prosecutor on the case!

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 1:53 pm

Rock On, The DA has never filed charges against government perps-much less white collar perps. Mike is the only one who has (Tom Story), so I am almsot 100% sure Bonnie D. will take a pass. For the life of me I cannot figure out why some people here think you should allow Smith to collect a $300K "bonus" for engaging in civil and possibly criminal acts. They say Smith will sue- and I say GO FOR IT-let her sue. Last time I checked the government does not make charging decisions based on whether a person will sue (with no cause of actions). And a lawsuit is a 2-way street- SD can sue too, and once Smith has to start paying $300/hour in attorney fees she will think twice about a meritless lawsuit. Just MHO. And if Smith gets hit with the Cities attorney fees for a scam lawsuit-game over!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
July 21, 2008 7:54 pm

BBH, thanks for mentioning Tom Story, the case that Aguirre was kicked off of because of his own misconduct. (That would be bribing witnesses with criminal immunity in exchange for favorable testimony in his civil case.) Oh, and Aguirre did successfully prosecute Charles Young's staffer, however, with fines and probation, which is really my point. By the way, the DA filed felony charges against 6 public officials involved in the City's pension for conflict of interest, if you recall. Hmmmmmm, how quickly we forget the recent past. But let's just hope Aguirre keeps his trap shut unless and until he actually files charges - it would be nice to see him take the high road rather than the publicity road for a change.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 1:37 pm

Post 21: "DA filed felony charges against 6 public officials involved in the City's pension for conflict of interest, if you recall." Please, tell us exactly what happened with those ‘DA Filed Charges.’ Has the ‘DA’ put any of those '6' away – are they in jail? It seems that some public servants are being held to higher standards than others - by the good citizens of ‘America’s Finest City.’

Posted by Really? | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 8:29 am

Rock On-at least Mike went up to the plate and took a few swings....I didn't see DA BD doing jack-oh, except obstructing justice in a lawful and validly signed, but unexecuted, search warrant. With Bonnie kicking back in the dug out the City has no chance of scoring any runs.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 8:58 am

I believe I heard BD claim that she did not have the funding needed to investigate all the shootings of unarmed people by Law Enforcement in San Diego City/County. Must be that she does not have the funding to do many of the investigations apparently needed in San Diego City/County. How can we help her find the funding and resources to start all the investigations that we now finding needed to be done? Here is an idea; we could redirect the funding for the department of internal affair at the SDPD to BD’s offices. Exactly what does that department really do anyway?

Posted by BD? | reply to this comment
July 25, 2008 9:46 am

• 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.