Sort of makes you think that maybe Aguirre really wasn't the problem after all.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 8:25 am

The fact that these disputes continue to arise is sympomatic of something that is a problem with San Diego's strong Mayor form of government. The Mayor NEEDS an independent and competent legal advisor which HE hires (and for which the Mayor can be held accountable for the competency and skill) . We operate in a legally complex world and good policy making DEMANDS solid legal advice during the stages of formulating policy options. Charter section 45, which outlines the nature of the independent city attorney, was written for a vastly different era and made much more sense in a Manager form of government. In a system in which the Mayor is the chief policy proposer, we absolutely need that office to have a chief counsel which can provide legal advice and guidance during the formulation of concepts and ideas.

Posted by Erik Bruvold | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 9:02 am

Why would the legal needs of the current strong mayor in forming policy be any different than the needs of the former mayor and council in forming policy? In fact, if the mayor hired the city attorney, the city attorney would be by definition not "independent", and so fails your fundamental criterion. The fact that these disputes continue to arise is the strongest signal that we badly need our independently elected city attorney to check the strong mayors desire to do what he wants regardless of the law. Lip service to the contrary aside, this mayor is the most secretive, opaque and controlling I can recall in recent San Diego history, and I am pleasantly surprised that Goldsmith so far appears to be fulfilling his role of providing sound legal advice rather than tailoring legal justifications to the desires of the mayor's policy wonks (a la Gwinn).

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 12:11 pm

Paul, your comments are right on, until you laud Goldsmith's "independent advice." I tried to keep an open mind too. But he's full of it. The controversy, remember, is over Goldstone's claim that needed advice was NOT given. Goldstone could be lying; wouldn't be the first time. But it's Goldsmith's team, claiming Dawson told the Mayor's office, whose story doesn't add up. See the SDCERS memo - Dawson knew. Confidently saying "Section 143.1 requires a vote" would've nixed any question. So I cannot buy any claim that she said that. Goldstone wouldn't now be whining, if he'd known early on that both SDCERS's and the CA's view was that a vote was definitely required. My guess: The Mayor's people were wilfully blind, Kay dutifully, profitably told them up was down, and Goldsmith's team failed to point out the obvious.

Posted by Michael Calabrese | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 3:03 pm

You have to understand that my expectations for Goldsmith were very low, so they aren't hard to meet. For instance I expected the city to settle with Sunroad rather than follow the case through (although I wouldn't bet on the same outcome if the city were not broke), so he gets points with me simply for apparently not being the complete rubber stamp that I expected. Hopefully there is some substance to his actions and the contention between the mayors office and the CA is legitimate and not just for public consumption.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 8:59 pm

Maybe he can get John Woo.

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 8:46 pm

Lost in the midst of the anti-Aguirre mob that stormed the City Attorney's office with their pitchforks and torches last November was any real discussion of Jan Goldsmith's qualifications for the office. Goldsmith is known by many in Sacramento to be an untrustworthy, quirky and ego-driven politician. And as a judge, lawyers took a deep breath before entering his courtroom, not knowing what kind of erratic behavior to expect from the bench. Goldsmith's inappropriate and condescending inaugural address was the opening salvo of "Aguirre II, the Sequel." Then having attacked Aguirre for firing staff lawyers for political reasons, he held his own Friday night massacre. His recent confrontations with the Mayor only reinforce the quiet whispers heard downtown during last year's campaign (e.g. "Aguirre v. Goldsmith? This is a choice?"). And that hair! Paging Scott Peters...

Posted by Ted Blake | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 10:52 am

Think back to the Strong Mayor initiative. A major criticism of the speed with which the proposal was formulated and placed on the ballot lay in the failure to take the time to work out the complexities of a Strong Mayor form of government within the prevailing City Charter? But, the powers that be pushed the proposal anyway and San Diego continues to struggle with two systems that cannot be aligned. And, let's be honest, Sanders and his administration have an agenda regardless of what legal advice is offered.

Posted by Sue Moore | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 10:57 am

Rani Gupta's article in Sundays Voice of San Diego about "a much-ballyhooed set of compensations cuts to address the city's financial woes, changes to the city's controversial deferred retirement program were a major part of the mix." Gupta outlined clearly the issues surrounding the mayor's efforts to change, alter and eliminate DROP. She then talked to Jay Goldstone and asked about SDCERS actions and what impact their refusal to implement those changes proposed in the latest contracts would have on the budget. Goldstone told Gupta it was news to the mayor changes to DROP would require a vote of the members of SDCERS (LIE NUMBER ONE).

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 11:10 am

Gupta goes on to write; Goldstone said it "would have been nice" if Goldsmith's office had told city officials about the requirement beforehand. He added, "I will tell you candidly, they will claim they told us and told our lawyers at least, our negotiators, but we (in the Mayor's Office) were not aware up here." (LIE NUMBER TWO) The mayor knew; his people knew, Bill Kay knows; Joan Dawson (City Attorney) knows; Timothy Davis should know; Scott Chadwick knows and others in the City Attorney's Office know changes to DROP or anything to do with Retirement Benefits are protected by the Charter and cannot be unilaterally changed as demanded by the mayor.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 11:12 am

No body made him King and he still can not believe it and he had attorneys outside the office advise him on DROP they just gave him the wrong answer. I wonder what the city was billed for that wrong answer.

Posted by sdvoter | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 11:43 am

In any form of government where the city attorney is elected, there is potential for a lack of trust between the lawyer and policymakers who did not choose him and may not like him. But is the elected City Attorney idea fundamentally inconsistent with the strong Mayor idea? No. First, there is nothing unusual about having both. The two systems co-exist in San Franciso and Los Angeles without nearly the rancor that San Diego has experienced. A similar system works in the 42 states that elect their attorneys general. The problem in SD is particular personalities. Second, the Mayor has a large staff that can, and in fact does, include lawyers. If he thinks that's what he needs, to be sure of getting good lawyer input when forming his policy recommendations, fine. Section 40 (not 45) does not prevent that.

Posted by Michael Calabrese | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 11:53 am

Eric....this is THE form of government that we have in place and therefore must live under. Didnt you and the Mayor support the change to the strong mayor (without doing your homework I may add) AND support Jan Goldsmith for City Attorney? You got what you wanted and now you are complaining?

Posted by Lester | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 2:10 pm

Well no....i didn't support either of the candidates for City Attorney. But that is besides the point. Note that both Tony V. and Gavin BOTH have small mayoral counselors that report directly to them to provide legal advice as they craft proposals. Alternatively, losen the prohibition in Charter Section 45 that the ONLY entity which can offer legal advice to city officials IS the City Attorney. It just doesn't work. This is a great example of why because who the heck KNOWS whether Sanders grandstanded knowing that the DROP program would never get revised, whether he didn't get the necessary legal advice, or an entirely different story. It has devolve to "he said, she said" which leaves the citizenry the party least well served. PS. Most governors ALSO have the option to hire lawyers on staff to advise them.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 6:07 pm

Erik, nothing in section 40 says the Mayor can't have attorneys as policy advisors. He has at least one, and could have more. Using outside counsel this way is more questionable, but routinely happens. Using this incident as an example, Sanders had at least the following attorneys at his disposal: Bill Kay (outside counsel), the CA's office (Joan Dawson), and Julie Dubick (one lawyer I know in the Mayor's office; I'm sure there are others). Did they all miss this? Unlikely. Another theory: They ALL knew their plan had a fatal legal defect. They proposed it anyway, planning to blame the unions for killing a fiscal reform by insisting on their right to vote it down. The plan went south because SDCERS called BS first; finger-pointing ensued. Whatever happened, the problem was certainly NOT a lack of lawyers.

Posted by Michael Calabrese | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 8:51 am

No. Mike Aguiree sent NUMEROUS memos to the Mayor reasserting his monopoly under charter section 40 and accused astaff members who held JDs of "illegally" practicing law. The council meetings where Peters and he fought about whether Peters could offer opinions about what the law would allow the Council to do are some of the best examples of civic food fights we have. I am less certain about precisely Dawson's standing but, if as with Aguiree, the lawyer 'assigned" to the Mayor's office can only be hired, fired, and assigned by the CA. If boundaries were clear there wouldn't be finger pointing. Goldsmith could assert "Mayoral counsel must have offered that opinion, we did not and when we do we always put it in writing as public document." Instead, he said, she said, and conspiracy theories. Clarity in roles=accountability

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 10:00 am

I haven't seen those memos, though they sound like Mike. But I also know section 40 pretty well. The Mayor can, should, and does have lawyers as policy advisors, notwithstanding anything Mike (whose word is surely not gospel) might have said. I don't agree that clarity of roles prevents finger-pointing. Finger-pointing will happen any time there is a screw-up and public officials are not grown up enough to take responsibility. Anyway, the lines of accountability are quite clear. Under section 40, the CA is the "chief legal advisor" for the City. He unquestionably had primary responsibility for preventing this particular screw-up. The question is, did they give clear advice or not? It looks like they either didn't give it, or were complicit in a plan that everyone always knew was legally bogus. Either way, they didn't do their job.

Posted by Michael | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 11:12 am

Two things. First , I do not know if Goldsmith is acting differently but Mike was VERY strong on enforcing his "perogative" to be chief legal advisor. When he threatens to charge staff with a misdemeanor it stiffles the willingness to "engage" in legal analysis. Second I find it interesting that now, post your embrace of charter section 40, you are ready to assign blame to Goldsmith - since the "lines of accountabilty are clear" even though I have no idea whether Sanders did or didn't ask or what the advice was or wasn't. What I want is a system where if the Mayor does poor work I can hold him accountable without getting "the dog ate my homework" excuses. Giving him a legal advisor would eliminate the potential for that excuse.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 1:14 pm

You're absolutely correct about Mike guarding his turf. I don't know about the specific stuff you're citing, but he routinely overdid it, and misdemeanor threats for simply analyzing a legal question would certainly be over the line. I am assuming Goldsmith, whatever his shortcomings, would do nothing of that sort. But I do think you're letting him off too easy. It doesn't matter whether the advice was requested or not. It's very clear that the CA's office was aware of these plans as they were developing. A responsible lawyer does not wait for the client to ask for advice that they may or may not even know they need. A Deputy CA who was doing their job should have spoken up, without being asked, and said "You guys know you need to put this to a vote, right?"

Posted by Michael | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 3:45 pm

Erik, this mayor has had plenty of "dog ate my homework" excuses regarding his own staff that he was personally responsible for hiring. Waring and Escobar-Eck come quickly to mind. MyView and Robert E. Lee are quick in this very thread to excuse all of Sanders failures on bad advice from staff. If the CA (or equivalent) was beholden to the mayor, that is exactly what we would get; more bad advice from staffer trying to please the mayor. With an independent CA, we at least have the chance for unbiased legal opinions in the best interest of San Diego. The whole "we are afraid of big bad Aguirre" act has worn really thin. First, he is gone, and second, he didn't actually bring charges against any city staffers. Aguirre was used as a foil by the mayor to excuse everything he did.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
May 29, 2009 5:18 am

Paul, you entirely "read into" and mischaracterize what I'm saying about Mayor Sanders. I thought it was clear that I was saying the mayor IS ultimately responsible for what comes out of his administration. However, I do think that a certain number of his aides or advisers are doing him a great disservice. Whether they are providing him with false or incorrect information, or even worse, no information, when they have a professional or ethical obligation to do so, they are failing in the duties that they were hired for. Paul, even the smartest person can't run the 8th largest city in the country without some meaningful help from his aides. For his sake and the sake of taxpaying San Diegans, Mayor Sanders needs to crack the whip and demand performance from these well-paid advisers to whom he's delegated responsibility. Now am I clear?

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
May 30, 2009 2:38 pm

Unless they clearly, firmly stated that a vote was needed, which I doubt, the CA's office didn't do its job. Maybe advice wasn't requested. Doesn't matter. A lawyer's job, sometimes, is to give advice anyway. The client may not know the advice is needed. If the CA's office was involved in the discussion early on - and apparently Joan Dawson was - they had an affirmative duty to speak up with something like "You guys know you need to put this to a vote, right?" And again, you keep saying "Sanders should have a legal advisor," but he can and does. Nothing prevents this. He can have ten if he can find the money. Aguirre's actions in defense of his turf, while they certainly did cross the line at times, are in the past. Whatever Goldsmith may be, he's not Mike. You're giving Mike's ghost too much power.

Posted by Michael | reply to this comment
May 29, 2009 2:06 pm

This thread of comments are so sad for our city. A deeply rooted sadness in the smallest big town I ever saw. Petty and silly. We finally voted a "strong mayor" and elected one who is not. We kicked out of office Mike Aguirre (he did have to go) but we elected who??? Jerry Sanders cares about San Diego - his background as a cop and head honcho of United Way showed us his heart. It's why San Diegans voted for him in the first place. His handlers need to let him be who he is and not who they want him to be. Only then will we see a change in his leadership style, and in our city. Step up Mayor. At this point it is yours to lose - more importantly - our city is losing.

Posted by MyView | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 6:36 pm

I agree. It's my observation that Mayor Sanders has been GREATLY disserved (is that a word?) by many of his advisors, whether it's this particular issue, the privatization fiasco, and more. Mayor Sanders, if you want to repair and save your legacy, you'd better start cleaning out the dead-weight staff as soon as possible. I willingly voted for you twice, and I think you're an accomplished, honorable man. I still support you. But the incompetence of some of your staff is dragging YOU down, badly!

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 9:57 am

Ha Ha Ha-this is killing me...after the outrageous full-court smear campaign against Aguirre, which included ginning up the old-school Union Tribune hate machine, the downtown elites have concluded that Jan simply is not one of them dear...But million gallon Scott? San Diego's slizzard impresario? Really folks-it's over for this town. Last one turn out the lights.

Posted by John Calvin | reply to this comment
May 28, 2009 7:03 am

RE: " It's my observation that Mayor Sanders has been GREATLY disserved (is that a word?) by many of his advisors, whether it's this particular issue, the privatization fiasco, and more." Sanders is a BULLY! Everyone who works for him knows this. It's his way or the highway. He only wants advice that fits his agenda. He knew about the requirements to change DROP but didn't care. He also knows same rules apply to RETIREE HEALTH CARE, but they're not making this public. Sanders cares about Sanders and his future political career. He greatly misrepresents himself to the public - don't be fooled!

Posted by get real | reply to this comment
May 29, 2009 7:52 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.