voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Don't Shoot the Public Records Requester

Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008 | I imagine that someone from Mars might read Southeastern Economic Development Corporation's Corporate Counsel Regina Petty's (nauseatingly sarcastic) apology to Will Carless and pity her for having to endure the outrageous onus that the press has put on her. Those of us here on Earth, or at least those of us who deal with the SEDC on a regular basis, know that her feigned apology cannot possibly be a sincere "mea culpa."

Last year I sued SEDC because it completely blew off my client's request for a few public records that happened to be sitting right there in SEDC's office all along. SEDC's president, Carolyn Smith, knew that the records my client wanted were needed to show yet another instance of government wrongdoing. Petty ran interference for SEDC for a little while, ran up some legal bills, and then told me that for weeks the records had been at SEDC's office ready for inspection. My staff went to the office and found out that many of the records were still in storage and not available for inspection. Ask anyone in the community who criticizes SEDC and asks for public records, and they'll tell you that the run-around game SEDC played with me is business as usual at SEDC (usually with Petty's involvement).

Furthermore, I have tried to call Petty about a dozen times over the last year but never--not once -- have managed to get her in person. Her staff always offered to put me through to her voice mail, but her voice mail turned out to be full and would not accept a message. Community members I know who have tried to call Petty get the same treatment.

My colleagues have also witnessed Petty in person, during public meetings, telling members of the public that they could not speak to SEDC's board about matters being considered by the board. Petty even suggested to SEDC's board members that they could go to jail -- that's right, go to jail! -- for doing something that the open-meeting laws allows or even requires.

I certainly understand that the practice of law can be demanding and that all lawyers should be given wide latitude to resolve their clients' problems without being second-guessed by opposing counsel or the public. Yet Petty's tactics cross the line, and not by just a little bit. There's no way that someone like Petty, who has publicly touted herself as the best lawyer in the country, has been innocently guiding SEDC through the legal morass that it finds itself in. Only if Petty were an idiot could we assume SEDC's repeated illegal behavior during Petty's watch was the result of innocently bad legal advice. The best lawyer in the country is surely no idiot.

Most lawyers don't like to swallow their pride. But after many years of practice, I've learned (much too slowly) that swallowing my pride is always better than eating crow, especially when that crow is force-fed in public. Had Petty sincerely apologized for her conduct, without trying to justify the unjustifiable, I suspect that most folks, including SEDC's critics, would be willing to give Petty and SEDC the benefit of the doubt. After all, the best lawyer in the country, like everyone else, is only human.

There's a certain irony in Petty blaming Carless for what amounts to his job well done in exposing her job done badly. I like irony. What I don't like is people shooting the messenger because they don't like the message. Petty's phony apology won't fool anyone except, perhaps, Petty. (And that suggests a second irony: Petty, the self-professed best lawyer in the county, being fooled by her own apology.)

Attorney Cory Briggs is representing local activist Ian Trowbridge in a lawsuit against SEDC and its former president, Carolyn Y. Smith.

So I just read Petty's letter to Carless and well, that response is to be expected from someone that has repeatedly OK'd the unethical behaviour of the SEDC. My question is, does Will Carless expect to get the information he requested or is Petty's assertion of Atty Client Privilege sufficiently protect her from itemizing the billing records?

Posted by Jason of Hillcrest | reply to this comment
October 23, 2008 2:41 pm

Jason: I am not an attorney, but as I understand it, the party who decides whether attorney-client privilege is invoked is the client (in this case, the SEDC board), NOT the attorney, Ms. Petty. If an attorney disagrees with his/her client, the attorney can resign, but it is the agency board here that makes that decision. Second, most public agencies, which, by definition, are funded with taxpayer dollars, MUST release their records to the public. That is California law, and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Ms. Petty can be sanctioned for unlawfully refusing to release unprotected records. And in this case, there is nothing about Ms. Petty's billing records that is subject to a broad claim of privilege, over-redaction (if that's such a word) that hides information that might be uncomfortable to Ms. Petty, etc. Mr. Briggs, do I have all of this right?

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 6:26 am

Mr. Briggs I am surprized... most everyone knows any lawyer worth their salt is an arrogant SOB, who learned the behavior in their 3rd year of law school.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
October 23, 2008 7:34 pm

JustWondering-tell me again, is ti PD or FD you work for..........I know it is a public agency.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 8:12 am

Thank you, Mr. Briggs, for highlighting the arrogance of private attorneys hired by Redevelopment Agency (RA) contractors. Like Ms. Petty, firms like ubiquitous Kane Ballmer Berkman (Gus Lamanna providing 98 pages of CCDC spam in response to VOSD's Public Records Act request and Royce Jones representing PDP/SEDC against the Petrarcas) disregard the public interest. San Diego's flawed RA structure muddies who an attorney's client is. The RA doesn't require competitive bidding for legal services, forbid the inherent conflict of having all RA contractors as clients, stipulate adherence to the Public Records Act or mandate the public interest over fiduciary duty to the corporation. If the Supreme Court precludes the latter, then abandon the corporate model or have City Attorney-provided legal services (with an alternate entity in the event of conflicts between the two separate legal entities).

Posted by Kathleen MacLeod | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 11:29 am

Greetings Earthlings! We come in peace...take us to your leader, Regina Petty. She is the smartest sentient being in the known universe. Only Queen Petty is intelligent enough to decide what information you lowly humans deserve. Do not resist! The evil Will Carless will face the wrath of the Fire Worms of Zargons, as shall that alien Ian Trowbridge and his robot slave Cory Briggs...Obey! Stop asking questions! Only Petty is worthy, and all earthlings must stop questioning her wisdom and righteousness or we will attack.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 2:46 pm

What do you know - the person just put into power at SEDC (by the mayor?) is protecting the records as well. “No good works need be hidden from the light of day” my father once told me; today I ask, “exactly what is it that they seem to desperate to hide from the eyes of the public they claim to be serving?

Posted by Iknowtodd | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 5:39 pm

I guess it's time for Mr. Briggs to sue Mr. Trotier and SEDC, with VOSD as the client, for failure to follow the Public Records Act. And ..be sure to send the legal bill to the Redevelopment Agency, with no details by the way, since it doesn't require its contractors to be transparent or accountable in their financial transactions.

Posted by Kathleen MacLeod | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 11:16 pm

That's what i find so amazing. It's almost as if the board wants SEDC dissolved. How else can you explain such arrogant, stupid decisions?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 6:53 am

How can you explain it?? Let me tell you. 1) Government employees + 2) no accountability.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 8:55 pm

I believe that our “Strong Mayor” and our “City Council” are the problem – it seems that most of them are going around campaigning for a more acceptable replacement for Mike A. instead of actually building a more open, honest, and transparent city government. And this, while making sure the single person whom seems to be at least trying to really reform our city government (Mike) is vilified. Those ‘elected representatives seem to be doing nothing but moving around members of their good old boys and girls clubs (different aspects of finance, development, or redevelopment) from one city owned redevelopment corporations / city departments involved in city. Here is a hint – the problem in San Diego is not our city Attorney, but the many other so-called elected represents of the people of our City Council Districts and all the people of our City; its Despicable!

Posted by Iknowtodd | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 8:53 am

Do I have this right, by doing things the right way (yet I did not know they were going to revote in public three days before this meeting) the Smith ‘golden umbrella’ they are said to have ‘corrected’ the supposed violations which may have taken place when they first gave Smith her ‘golden umbrella.’ To me, that is kind of like stealling a million dollars, if no one brings changes against you (if you are not found out) you get to keep the million dollars, if someone finds-out you simply return the million dollars and the crime goes away and all charges must be dropped? Ratio legis - cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex; coelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt.... Anyway, that’s what I think about this whole situation.

Posted by Mr. Mike | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 9:13 am

Folks, this ring-a-rosy over access to public records for journalists invoking the Freedom of Information Act law ends only when the journal's PUBLISHER IS WILLING TO COMMIT MONEY (IF NECESSARY) TO SUE RECALCITRANT PUBLIC OFFICIALS who don't comply. That's how it works for the San Diego Reader and the Union-Tribune and every other effective news organization in the country. A journal without such back-up power is hobbled. I'd like to hear from friends of the voiceofsandiego.org about how we can help make sure that voice FOIA demands are honored.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 10:12 am

As I've said before, prophetic and in one of the oldest books written, "everything done in darkness will be exposed to the light." There's more hidden to be uncovered and exposed in San Diego...we are all be waiting for this publisher to 'sue' those government officials unwilling to comply with the law.

Posted by Wake Up San Diego! | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 9:56 pm

Here's why SEDC and CCDC both need to be dissolved. SEDC's "Best Lawyer in the Universe" Petty concocts a "un-vote-re-vote" to re-ratify inexcusable back room deals, and the "new and improved" SEDC Board goes right along with her? Dissolve the SEDC now. There's no reform going on. The frauds continue. The City Council is supposed to oversee this, and only Stephen Whitburn and Marti Emerald are openly calling for the CCDC and SEDC to be dissolved. Vote Stephen Whitburn or Marti Emerald to Change San Diego.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
October 26, 2008 8:56 am

Seems to me that jerry is just moving people into place, on SEDC and CCDC ('s) boards, who are, or will be, loyal to him above and beyond the city and the majority of the people in San Diego – that is how I see it.; a centralization of power into and every smaller and tighter group of ‘like thinkers’. Kind of like the other so-called community and citizen ‘gangs’ around our city claiming to represent a whole group while only representing the selected ‘cream’ memberships of San Diego. This morning in the VOSD I read something from the ‘Tax Payers Association’; I thought "most “tax payers” in San Diego make less than $47,000 a year, yet strangely enough - I see none of those people nor the bettering of the conditions of those “tax payers” as being the central concern of that association of "Tax Payers". "

Posted by gregory | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 12:42 pm

Well, you can't blame me - I voted for Bidwell! I've got an idea, turn over the budget data to SDSU, USD, PLN, or even UCSD - even their economists should be able to produce a real live honest audit, completed - on time for a change. Sure Jerry, hire the Profs and staffs of a local university to do an open and objective audit, make it a competition every year between different local universities - so we will have some new fresh young objective eyes looking for anomalies in our budget. God knows our local universities could use the support and it is clear that those hired in the past did not do so complete or thorough of a job. In addition, the money our city spends on audits would be infused into the local economies instead of going to the "Out of Towners."

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 3:27 pm

Don't Shoot the Public Records Requester

By Cory Briggs, San Diego