This will be my main blogging page. After a period of time, I will move older blog entries to The Archive page.
Finally, the Sledgehammer! Thanks to the hard work of Voice of San Diego’s Will Carless, we learn that not only did fired SEDC president Carolyn Smith line her pockets with extra, unaccounted-for tax dollars in recent years, but she also secretly paid tens of thousands of dollars of the public’s money to “consultants” Angela Harris and Herman Collins. As reported by Carless, even former and present SEDC insiders, who would understandably defend the agency, have expressed serious doubts about the contributions of Angela Harris. Apparently, just being a friend and defender of Carolyn Smith was enough of a basis for larding Harris’ pot with allegedly ill-gotten gains. At least the other “consultant,” Herman Collins, can reasonably justify most of the services he provided to SEDC. But the problem with both Angela Harris and Mr. Collins is that many of their contracts exceeded the agency’s own $50,000 threshold, which requires taking the contracts to the board of directors for approval. And even contracts at or below $50 thousand still had to be reported to the board, though they did not require a vote of approval. However, as I read the latest reports in Voice about the dysfunctional agency, I am most disappointed and shocked to see that the new board chairman, Cruz Gonzalez, apparently violated the SEDC rules by letting an $80,000 no-bid contract to Herman Collins, which he did not take to the full board for approval! Again, with everything SEDC has gone through in recent months with its culture of lack of accountability and transparency under the previous “leadership,” I find this action by Gonzalez to be utterly astonishing. Mayor Sanders reappointed Gonzalez to the SEDC board to bring about major reforms at SEDC. Did Gonzalez, who often complained about being shut out of important decisions during the Carolyn Smith years, learn anything about good governance and being a vigorous steward on behalf of taxpayers??? Apparently not. How sad.” Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake State Bar of Re: Complaint against attorney Southeastern Economic Development Corporation I am filing a formal complaint against Regina Petty, the Corporate Counsel for the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (hence, SEDC). SEDC is a quasi-independent, non-profit corporation established by the City of SEDC is principally funded annually by the City of In recent months, SEDC became embroiled in major controversy concerning the unauthorized payment of nearly $1 million of agency funds to several employees, above and beyond their annual, City-approved salaries. The extra payments were not budgeted or approved by either the SEDC Board of Directors or the San Diego City Council. An independent auditing firm concluded that this and other practices at SEDC rose to the level of fraud. Consequently, the president of SEDC, who paid out the unauthorized funds, resigned as a result of the fraudulent misconduct. On September 4, 2008, Will Carless, a reporter for the online journal Voice of San Diego, requested the billing statements of Regina Petty, the Corporate Counsel for SEDC. Mr. Carless requested the public records to help provide information for use in an ongoing series of investigative articles about the scandal at SEDC. Ms. Petty, time after time, delayed the production of the requested public records, citing numerous excuses, until the records were finally released to Mr. Carless on October 29, 2008. (In support, I am attaching two (2) items from Voice of San Diego, pertaining to Mr. Carless’ efforts to secure the public records. One item is an article recapping the unreasonably long and arduous efforts to secure the release of the public records. The second item is a letter to the editor from Ms. Petty, to Voice of San Diego, in which she rants, in a completely unprofessional manner, against the efforts of Mr. Carless to obtain the public records.) I assert the following violations, by Ms. Petty, of The 1. Sections 6253 and 6255 of the Act provide that the public agency, here SEDC Corporate Counsel Regina Petty, always bears the burden of justifying nondisclosure of public records. The Act contains specific exceptions to disclosure of public records. Ms. Petty unlawfully failed to comply with this section of the Act, by her refusal to release public records that did not fall under any of the exceptions. 2. Section 6253 also provides that the agency, here SEDC Corporate Counsel Regina Petty, must provide the records no later than ten (10) days after they are requested. And giving Ms. Petty further benefit of the doubt in this case, the Act provides that, upon written notice, an additional 14 days to respond may be taken. However, the Act importantly provides, as well, that the time periods to produce public records may not be used solely to delay access to the records. As a result of Ms. Petty’s defiance and unprofessional conduct, she took 55 days to produce the requested records, which is more than twice as long as the Act mandates, assuming Ms. Petty could justify a 24 day delay. I believe Ms. Petty’s delays are a gross violation of the time requirements of the Act. Thank you for your prompt attention to the serious matters I have raised. Sincerely, Robert Lee” Petty Surrenders! Too Bad It’s Too Late... October 21, 2008. A couple of weeks ago, Regina Petty, the holdover SEDC “corporate counsel” from the Carolyn Smith days, said, in response to a call for her to resign, “...there is no attorney in this country whose integrity and competence is better than mine.” Yet, for weeks now, Petty has seemingly stonewalled efforts on the part of Voice of San Diego reporter Will Carless, who has invoked the California public records laws, to release billing statements for the legal work Petty has purportedly done for SEDC, at taxpayer expense. Here is Carless’ latest report on Petty’s apparent refusal to return his calls or simply release the desired expense reports. October 9, 2008. I am very pleased to report on two positive developments (no pun intended) at the scandal-plagued Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC). First, community activist Ian Trowbridge and his attorney were successful, for now, in getting a Superior Court judge, Jay Bloom, to issue a temporary restraining order barring former SEDC president Carolyn Smith from receiving a $100,000 severance payment. Yes, the same Carolyn Smith who sneakily padded her base salary in recent years with taxpayer funds. A recent performance report from an outside, independent auditor concluded that numerous incidents of misconduct by Smith rose to the level of fraud. The previous SEDC board of directors, filled with Smith loyalists, voted to provide the $100K severance, even though they had just fired her for cause! Regrettably, the newly composed SEDC board of directors, likely fearing a breach of contract lawsuit from Carolyn Smith, recently voted to uphold the $100K severance payment. The Trowbridge victory, though, is not a permanent ruling. Judge Bloom simply ruled that Trowbridge and his attorney presented enough evidence, at this point, to justify withholding the severance payment from Smith, pending the outcome of a future court hearing to examine the merits of the case. I’m hopeful that Trowbridge will again prevail in the next court hearing, given that the facts of the case are very clear and will be the same in the future as they are today. Given my penchant to express myself on the SEDC scandal, I sent a letter to the editor at Voice of San Diego.org, congratulating Trowbridge on his legal victory. Read the letter here. The other encouraging event was the decision last night by the Projects Committee at SEDC to rescind the previous agreement to award a controversial project to Pacific Development Partners (PDP). The committee agreed that a clear conflict of interest existed when the project was awarded, because the previous SEDC board chairman, Artie Owen, was receiving “consulting” fees from PDP. In some years, Owen pocketed as much as $100,000 from PDP. The too-cozy Owen-PDP relationship raised legal red flags with San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre, who sternly advised the new SEDC board not to honor the project agreement with PDP. Last evening, the board heeded his advice and voted to wipe the slate clean and come up with a new bidding process for the project, called the Valencia Business Park. I spoke before the Projects Committee, asking them to go even further, and bar PDP from bidding in the new process to develop Valencia Business Park. I contended that PDP was consciously aware of the conflict of interest involving Artie Owen, but knowingly and deliberately pursued the Valencia project anyway. I asked the committee members not to reward what I (and many others) believe was bad behavior on the part of PDP. It remains to be seen whether the full SEDC board will ban PDP from bidding in the new process. So, although I still oppose the existence of SEDC (and Center City Development Corporation), at least I am heartened to see that the new board of directors is diligently working to reform the operations of the agency. Government agencies, including SEDC, must never forget their sacred responsibility to always use taxpayer dollars in lawful and efficient ways. October 6, 2008. I just read in Saturday’s Union-Tribune that fired SEDC president, Carolyn Smith, was pressing the agency and the City for an additional $49,500, to go along with the $100,000 “golden parachute” she will get as part of her severance package. SEDC board chairman Cruz Gonzalez wrote a letter to City of The additional reimbursement to Carolyn Smith was due today. However, the lawsuit challenging the $100,000 severance agreement, brought by community activist Ian Trowbridge, is also scheduled for today. Trowbridge brought suit, alleging that it is unlawful to provide Smith with the hundred-grand severance package in closed session, which has now occurred twice. Apparently, though, Gonzalez will proceed with the payment of $130,500, and not wait for the outcome of the court case. Either way, this additional chapter in the SEDC and Carolyn Smith scandal just leaves me shaking my head, wondering whatever happened to the idea of human shame; especially in this case, where the greedy person, Carolyn Smith, is the daughter of a minister. Daddy must be really proud of his little girl… Finally, these observations about other events of the evening: > New board members Richard Lawrence and Vernon Evans are also to be commended for their repeated insistence that SEDC start with a clean slate regarding senior staff, and that the board be given unfettered access to the agency’s financial books so they can determine exactly where SEDC stands, moneywise. Another new board member, Gina Champion-Cain, also asked some probing and clarifying questions. Too bad that wasn’t allowed to happen before, under the former board. September 21, 2008. I will be on temporary hiatus with my blog, due to the permanent damage that was caused to my home computer by a nasty virus. Everything on my computer was lost. It will be a few weeks before I can purchase another machine. The essential point of this blog entry is to learn from my mistakes.
First, I let the anti-virus software expire that I was using to protect my computer. That is when the initial attack on my machine occurred, and things just went from bad to worse to irrecoverable loss. There are evil people out there who get their kicks by creating pernicious viruses, Trojans, phish sites, and other destructive “bugs” for the purpose of destroying other persons’ computers. I never thought it would happen to me. It did.
Lesson #1: Keep up-to-date antivirus software installed and working on your computer. The price for antivirus software is far, far less than the value of your computer and the information you store on your machine!
Second, I did not make it a practice to do a frequent “backup” of critical files and data onto a secondary source. I knew I should be doing this, but like a lot of folks, I got complacent and rarely did a backup.
Lesson #2: If you have critical information on your computer that you cannot afford to lose or that cannot be replaced, do a backup. Again, the cost of a floppy disk, CD or DVD-R, USB storage drive or other backup medium is nothing compared to the loss of critical data.
For those of you reading this, you are now warned…
> City Attorney Mike Aguirre has dropped his civil lawsuit against SEDC president, Carolyn Smith, to clear the way for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to proceed with a criminal indictment instead, now that the aforementioned audit of SEDC has concluded that Smith and other agency personnel engaged in fraud. I am delighted at this legal development, since criminal convictions are more likely to result in jail time, not just monetary fines, as civil punishment often does. In light of the very serious findings of the SEDC audit, Mayor Jerry Sanders has pressed for District Attorney Dumanis to immediately launch a criminal investigation. I called for such action by Dumanis many, many days ago.
> If there was any question about the complicity of SEDC Finance Director, Dante Dayacap, in the financial scandals, the audit states that Dayacap “…decided how much to pay himself and other SEDC employees, including the SEDC President.”
> In August, 2006, SEDC spent more than $156,000 on a 25th anniversary party for the agency. Of course, the party was not detailed in the SEDC budget, nor was it approved by the board of directors. It was this kind of intentional hiding of how taxpayer dollars were misspent at SEDC that supports the audit’s designating these activities as “fraud.” Whitburn vs. Gloria, Round 1 Would somebody please help me clean all of the sticky webbing off of me? August 31, 2008. Often, healing is a very slow and painful process. The near financial meltdown that the City of Moody’s joins the other two ratings agencies, Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s, which had earlier boosted the City’s financial outlook to “positive.” A few years ago, when the news first broke about how very bad the City’s financial condition was, Standard and Poor’s went so far as to entirely suspend its ratings. So the fact that all three agencies have now granted positive ratings demonstrates how far along the City, and especially Mayor Sanders, has come in repairing its tattered finances. The positive upgrades will allow the City to receive much more favorable credit terms in the financial markets, saving The mayor’s office, with occasional support from the City Council, has undertaken major reforms to help bring our municipal finances under control. As Mayor Sanders rightly points out, “…we’ve accomplished all of this without raising taxes.” But, again, the mayor also cautions us that the work to fully restore the City’s financial condition is far from over, as the structural challenges in the budget still must be addressed. And we have been starkly reminded, in the wake of the SEDC and CCDC scandals, that there is much waste, fraud and abuse to weed out of the City’s financial and governing system.
For now, though, “stable” and “positive” ratings are promising steps in the right direction.
August 27, 2008. What is it about accountability to, and respect for taxpayers, that the board of directors at SEDC just doesn’t get? Mayor Jerry Sanders; the mayor’s Chief Operating Officer, Jay Goldstone; San Diego City Council members Tony Young and Jim Madaffer; City Attorney Mike Aguirre; and at least one attorney, who is suing the SEDC board for its misconduct, have all cautioned the board, in no uncertain terms, not to undertake any more binding business matters until four of the board members have been replaced! Yet the SEDC board went ahead and scheduled a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the renewal and letting of contracts valued in the millions of dollars. Voice of San Diego.org.
The SEDC board also shows a sophomoric defiance by again scheduling a closed-door meeting today to discuss the terms for the departure and compensation of its president, Carolyn Smith. An earlier closed-door meeting, at which the board agreed to fire Ms. Smith, also resulted in a severance package that included a financial payment of over $100,000, a ninety day window to leave her job, and indemnification from lawsuits related to Ms. Smith’s misconduct. However, Obviously, these “runaway train” actions by the SEDC board are not sitting well at all with too many folks at City Hall. Separately, Jay Goldstone, Council member Madaffer and City Attorney Aguirre have sternly warned the SEDC board that first, any actions or decisions taken or made by the intransigent board members may end up being declared null and void and not honored by the City, and second, board members could face individual prosecution or sanctions for their unlawful actions. (All links, Voice of San Diego.org.)
It’s about time someone read these SEDC board members the “riot act” and unequivocally demanded that they stop their continued misbehavior. So much of the board members’ defiance seems almost surreal in its brazenness.
We now know that the weirdly-departed captain of CCDC, Nancy Graham, was even worse than her counterpart at SEDC, in that Graham brought her troubles with her from out-of-state. A nearly identical pattern of conflict of interest dogged Graham in After all of the sordid details of the malfeasance at SEDC, I called for the abolishment of that agency. I decried the lack of accountability that these quasi-independent, non-profit development “corporations” engender. I questioned the additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that these agencies bring with their creation. Well, you know what, folks? We already have a Redevelopment Agency at the city, and it’s called the San Diego City Council.
Since I recently called for the dissolution of these “development corporations”, not one single citizen or taxpayer that I have heard has stepped forward to oppose me. Not one! Mayor Sanders, I sincerely appreciate the overall job you are doing, trying to clean up the horrible mess you inherited at City Hall. Haven’t we all learned, though, that these duplicative agencies, which suffer from lack of accountability and drain the coffers of the City’s general fund, are no longer needed?
Please, Mayor Sanders and City Council members, let’s stop the hemorrhaging and put an end to this insanity! As soon as is practicable, put CCDC and SEDC out of business, and return the management and oversight of redevelopment where it belongs: In the hands of officials who are directly accountable to voters and taxpayers.” First, I commend Ian Trowbridge and attorney Cory Briggs for their lawsuit against the SEDC board, seeking to reverse the illegal granting of an entirely undeserved financial severance package to departing agency president, Carolyn Smith. In general, I am not a fan of clogging the court system with wasteful and time-consuming litigation. However, the unlawful and unethical actions of Smith, finance director Dante Dayacap, board chairman Artie Owen, and most of the board members, cry out for judicial reversal and relief, since none of these individuals at SEDC seem capable of making proper decisions on their own. None of the SEDC malcontents appreciate that they are abusing and misusing taxpayer dollars.
In the other related news of the day, we hear that Mayor Jerry Sanders is initially nominating four individuals to replace the four SEDC board members who seem to be the most clueless when it comes to being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars that fund the agency. This development was long overdue, but at least it’s finally getting done.
However, I still stand by my belief that, in the end, SEDC needs to be eliminated, and its “redevelopment” duties returned to the San Diego City Council, for a number of reasons. First, the City Council already sits as the Redevelopment Agency for the city, so why not cut out the “middle man” that is the various “development corporations”, especially during these lean financial times for the City? Second, by leaving redevelopment policy and decisions with the City Council, it would be in the hands of office holders who are directly accountable to citizens and taxpayers, which the SEDC staff, in particular, has clearly demonstrated that it is not. At least with the City Council members, we have persons who can be recalled or not reelected if they fall seriously short in their duties. Finally, there is no other municipality in So, please, Mayor Sanders, go ahead and appoint replacement board members at SEDC, but “task” them with leading the agency to an eventual, orderly dissolution. The “DC” experiment has failed miserably.”
We have also learned of an ineffectual board of directors at SEDC, which I contend did not perform the oversight and fiduciary duties expected of them in their role as stewards of taxpayer dollars. Oh, by the way, all of the board seats are long expired, yet these board members are still there at SEDC. Only in government and the public sector can these board members not only remain in their expired positions, but they vote to provide legal immunity to Carolyn Smith in the event she is sued (and should be) for her malfeasance and disregard for the value of taxpayer dollars. Now, we hear that, last night, the same SEDC board cannot even bring itself to remove Artie “Chip” Owen as the board chairman. The same Owen who, in the view of many, has a glaring conflict of interest in his role at SEDC, given the business that he has personally, financially benefited from in his time as chairman, to the tune of over $1 million. Like a lot of taxpayers in So, given the pattern of unlawful behavior of SEDC officials, and the failure of the board there to vote in ways that protect the sanctity of taxpayer dollars, I now call for Mayor Sanders and the City Council to abolish SEDC. I also call on the offices of the District Attorney, the U.S. Attorney and the Internal Revenue Service to finally step up to the plate and prosecute and punish the long history of obvious wrongdoing at SEDC. Until these actions and investigations are undertaken, the citizens and taxpayers of August 13, 2008. Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse, a new outrage emerges in the scandal involving Carolyn Smith, soon-to-be ex-president of Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC). Voice of San Diego.org reporter Will Carless now reports that, not only did the SEDC board members agree to provide a nice “golden parachute” severance of just over $100,000 and up to 90 days for president Carolyn Smith to leave the agency, they also granted her immunity from lawsuits that may arise from what I (and others) believe is malfeasance and lack of fiduciary duty on Smith’s part! This unbelievable information follows the news, and becomes relevant because of, a threat on the part of San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre to sue Ms. Smith personally to try to recoup some or all of her ill-gotten, taxpayer-funded, financial gains during her tenure at SEDC. If the clause in Carolyn Smith’s severance agreement related to protection from lawsuits is upheld, Smith would likely get off scot free in her raid of the public till at SEDC.
But as I read the report, one very big, glaring thought and question came to my mind: The terms of the SEDC board members expired some time ago. That being the case, how can the board members vote on and enter into a legally binding agreement with Ms. Smith granting her immunity from lawsuits that would be based on malfeasance, fraud or lack of fiduciary duty, when the board members themselves are without portfolio?
I fired off an email this morning to Will Carless of Voice of San Diego asking him to look into this question, regarding the power and authority of board members whose terms have expired. Let’s see what he (or Mike Aguirre?) comes up with…
August 9, 2008. As Voice of San Diego.org and the San Diego Union-Tribune continue to investigate the years of corruption that were orchestrated at the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) by outbound president Carolyn Smith, the details of the many ways in which she abused taxpayer dollars sadly demonstrate her seeming contempt for those of us who are footing the bill. Consider:
First, in October, 2007, SEDC very generously gave $3,000 in taxpayer funds to The Catfish Club, a “civic forum” best known for its weekly luncheons that regularly feature San Diego politicians and candidates as guests of honor. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was invited, as a City Council candidate earlier this year, to attend a Catfish Club luncheon event. As someone who is gainfully employed during regular business hours, though, including the lunch hour, I was not able to attend the event. I would have attended, however, if not for work obligations.) Putting aside, for the moment, that taxpayer dollars were used by Carolyn Smith for this “donation” to Catfish Club, there is one other especially pertinent consideration: Catfish Club is run by The Reverend George Walker Smith, the father of Carolyn Smith. Now that the word is out about such a highly inappropriate contribution, will The Reverend return the three-grand? Voice of San Diego.org.
Next, Carolyn Smith definitely doesn’t believe in “brown bagging” it when it comes to eating or entertaining guests. Nope, she would rather that taxpayers pony up for things like filet mignon, New York strip steak, veal and other fine dishes at exclusive and upscale eateries, washed down with $4 cups of coffee. Ms. Smith is an exceptional tipper, too, sometimes at double the usual 15% rate most people use. Oh, and Smith’s top financial guy at SEDC, Dante Dayacap, demonstrated that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by doing much the same thing as his boss, on his own gastronomical excursions. In Dayacap’s case, he says, basically, he splurged in the name of employee morale and team building. Heck, at most of the places I’ve worked, they settle for a couple of pizzas at the office to help boost your self-worth. San Diego Union-Tribune.
Sigh!!! Under the terms of her termination, as per the SEDC board of directors (whose terms are expired, by the way), Carolyn Smith can remain there for another couple of months before she must finally depart. Hold on to your wallets, San Diego taxpayers! The pillaging may not be over yet…
August 5, 2008. It is my intention to keep this blog focused on San Diego-related issues as much as possible, but governmental actions in To his credit, Governor Schwarzenegger finally, once and for all, wants to act decisively to address the structural problems that keep leading to the recurring deficits and financial crises that so pervade the operations of state government in Sacramento. And naturally, the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature, for the most part, each have very different views on how to “solve” the structural deficit challenges. In the simplest of terms, the Democrats want to raise taxes, the Republicans want painful budget cuts, and the Governor proposes something more or less in between. Among the three sides – the Governor, the Republicans, and the Democrats – I applaud the Governor (for the most part; read on) and the Republicans for their tough resolve in seeking to restore financial discipline to the State budget.
As for the Governor, I raucously commend him on his move to pay most State officials and employees the Federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour until the budget stalemate is resolved. Is this a headline-grabbing stunt on the part of the governor to draw attention to the seriousness of the fiscal problems in On the other hand, though, I do not approve of the Governor’s proposal to enact a “temporary”, three-year increase in the state sales tax to help pay down the budget deficit. Why not? First, I believe the sales tax is the most regressive levy there is, and hits poor and working class citizens the hardest. Second, Finally, the Republicans in the Legislature seem to be holding firm to their insistence that budget cutbacks be a major part of the financial turn-around of our often bloated and misappropriated state budgets. As they (and I) say, we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I hope the Republicans in Hell Hath No Fury Like a Hypocrite Scorned! July 31, 2008. Perhaps not surprisingly, the whole Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) scandal just keeps spawning new controversies and outrages. The latest chapter involves the hypocrisy and gall of a so-called “consultant” to the SEDC, Angela Harris. In recent days, she is among the group of illustrious figures pushing for a possible recall election against San Diego City Councilman, Tony Young. While I was critical of what I perceived to be Councilmember Young’s complacency in literally calling the SEDC to account for its financial shenanigans, I do salute Young for finally calling for the termination of Carolyn Smith, the self-enriching president of the redevelopment agency. At a board meeting last week, Ms. Smith was indeed fired, albeit with a very generous “golden parachute” financial settlement.
But, back to Ms. Harris, the supposed consultant to SEDC. Is she a hypocrite, as I contend? You decide: This is someone who, a few years ago, benefited from a questionable and poorly managed program that sold affordable homes to needy residents in the area served by SEDC. Voice of San Diego.org. In exchange for promising to remain in one of the affordable homes for ten years, SEDC offered low-income buyers the opportunity to acquire a home at a very attractive price. First, Angela Harris, as a contractor with lucrative ties to SEDC, hardly qualified as low income. And second, she easily refinanced the home, taking out equity, which could, in the end, really drive up the cost of the home if she decides to sell it. A home that was supposed to be “affordable” into the future would likely no longer be so. Again, I remind you, taxpayer dollars are involved in the support of these kinds of schemes.
Then, at last week’s meeting of the SEDC board, called to decide the fate of Carolyn Smith, Angela Harris got up, during the public comment period, and told Smith’s critics that they could all “go to Hell!” Hmm. First, Ms. Harris benefits from an SEDC program that, as I and many others see it, she should not have. Then she has the audacity to get up and tell others where to go, as it were. Okay…
Now, finally, Angela Harris is leading a purported effort calling for the removal of Tony Young from his Council seat, just because he ultimately called for the firing of Carolyn Smith. Councilmember Young says it best in pointing out the shamelessness of such a recall effort, as led by Angela Smith: “Really, this is a good example of why we need to reform SEDC, because you have a person who’s benefited personally from SEDC when it comes to housing opportunities, who is making this effort. “(The recall effort) is not going to be supported. It’s just unfortunate because it detracts from the real work we have to do at SEDC.” Voice of San Diego.org.
Well said, Tony Young. Very well said! The rank hypocrisy displayed by Angela Harris is both shameful and shameless, at the same time.
July 30, 2008. A couple of weeks ago, a dog that served in the San Diego Police Department K9 unit died a horrible death, when the officer that the dog partnered with left the animal locked inside an unventilated vehicle at his home, and where the temperature reached over 100 degrees. Scott Lewis, Co-Executive Editor at one of my favorite online publications, Voice of San Diego.org, wrote a commentary that detailed the agonizing death of the dog, named Forrest. In his piece, Scott also related the tragic death of the dog with a favorable decision that K9 officers received that would allow this group of officers to receive extra compensation when they retire to help care for their K9 dogs.
As with many other concerned and shocked readers, I made the following, initial response to Scott’s commentary: “The extra compensation Hubka [the officer involved] and other K9 officers will receive is almost – almost! – beside the point. Hubka, more than anyone else, should appreciate and practice the utmost humane treatment of his animal and “partner.” Now, he should just be deeply ashamed of himself. I hope this tragic event haunts Hubka the rest of his life! The gross negligence that killed the dog sickens and disgusts me. Finally, I hope Hubka is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, convicted, and booted off the police force, with no retirement benefits to come. Please, Scott Lewis and Voice, on behalf of concerned readers and citizens, follow this story as it unfolds, would you? I want to know what kind of justice, in the end, is meted out to Hubka.”
In response to my comments, I was strongly admonished by another police officer, who said, “…You absolutely amaze me. You act as if Paul killed his partner on purpose. The City should punish him to the full extent of the Law? You of all people should believe in compassion and the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. Paul Hubka made a mistake and after the investigation is over, i [sic] am sure he will be disciplined. Paul deserves to have his impeccable record and tireless dedication to the citizens of this city recognized prior to determining what degree of discipline he receives. You have two-stepped your way around this issue in other venues but I believe the real R.E.L. is present here. The Discusting [sic] truth is quite evident here!”
Okay, I will concede that a couple of my lines (“I hope this tragic event haunts Hubka the rest of his life! The gross negligence that killed the dog sickens and disgusts me.”) were said in a sort of “heat of the moment” anger, and were perhaps a little too harsh in the way in which I phrased them. However, I unequivocally stand by the underlying substance and intent of what I said in those two particular sentences. Officer Hubka is indeed entitled to have all mitigating facts and circumstances taken into consideration when he is punished for the death of the dog. But in the other officer’s remarks above, I’m not sure I understand what he means when he says about me, “You have two-stepped your way around this issue in other venues…” Perhaps he will elaborate and lend some clarification to what he is referring to.
Then, yesterday, yet another police officer, Jeff Jordon, who is a member of the San Diego Police Officers Association Board of Directors, himself wrote a very long, scathing letter to the editor, blaming exhaustion on the part of Officer Hubka as the likely cause that led to the dog’s death. But Officer Jordon didn’t stop there in his letter, saying, “I blame and have a fair amount of disdain for community members and activists that demand everything from its public servants and want to pay nothing in return. You have your role in this tragedy as well. Paul [Hubka] should not take the blame of Forrest’s death alone. The resources available and the continued demands placed on the San Diego Police Department in its current state made this tragedy fated. Quite frankly, I expected it to happen long before now and I am truly sorry that it cost Forrest his life.” Hmmm, so essentially, all San Diegans are to blame for the death of the dog, Forrest.
I felt that Officer Jordon was completely out of line in making such a broad-brush statement, to which I responded, “Officer Jordon: In this case, if the death had been that of a child of Hubka’s, and not a dog, would you still be spouting the same scattershot, “blame everyone in sight” nonsense you have published here? Fatigue? The dog’s death was inevitable? We “community members” have a role in the animal's death? You have disdain for US? If you really feel that way, Mr. Jordon, it’s time for you to go, too, and find another line of work. I agree that our public safety departments are badly understaffed, and that was something I continually addressed as a recent political candidate. But to go hysterical as you have in this letter does nothing to address the core issue: Officer Hubka’s gross negligence in the death of one of God’s creatures, over whom we, as humans, are called upon to be good stewards.”
In a subsequent comment, I added, “Officer Jordon: I don't for a moment dispute that understaffing at PD leaves a lot of you absolutely exhausted. Your point on that is well taken, by me anyway, and I really, sincerely do appreciate the overall effort that you and your fellow officers put forth on our behalf. But I honestly, in my heart of hearts, cannot simply write off the death of Forrest to exhaustion. It was caused by one degree or another of negligence on the part of Officer Hubka, and that’s what makes it inexcusable. I have no doubt that Hubka is suffering over what happened. I have no doubt that he loved that dog. But as a K9 officer, Hubka has an extra level of care and duty that he owed to Forrest. Finally, Officer Jordon, you do yourself, Mr. Hubka and your PD colleagues no favor with the tone of your “blame everyone” letter!”
Further on, Officer Jordon stated, “[C]itizens and politicians always just scapegoat the individual officer after a tragedy occurs…” Again, I felt Jordon was just reaching way too far, to which I replied, “The expectation of Justice and Accountability are not “scapegoating”, Officer Jordon. A shocking wrong was done here by someone who, above others, should know better. As for the issue of public safety personnel fatigue, my final thought here is that you are right, it is a public policy concern that needs to be addressed in this city, separate and distinct from the incident of the dead dog. If I could personally do something about it, I would. In the campaign, my support for Police and Fire was strong and unquestioned, and still is today. I met personally with some of your colleagues, including another officer who is posting on this topic today. But, over the years, so many city officials let this city go down the tubes in so many ways, the task ahead of rebuilding this city, including public safety, is massive.”
I thought the comments by me, Jordon and other Voice readers had pretty well played themselves out, but it was not to be. The first officer that originally replied to my statement about Officer Hubka came back with this: “Look, I am not whining and either is Jeff [Jordon]. We are both asking all of you cop haters, city employee haters and just haters to take a look at yourself be[f]ore you pass the death penalty.” He continued, “Politics play more of a role in their [City officials’] decision making process, unless of course you are a good ole boy or the son or daughter of, or in some cases a minority. Officer Hubka is a white, heterosexual male, which by all indication, will not be any advantage for him.”
That officer’s comment was just too much for me. I said in response, “I thought I was finished with my comments on here, but, seeing as how you and I have met and talked before, I am extremely disappointed that you are lumping me in with “cop haters, city employee haters and just haters”. I am none of the above; not even close! Nor have I asked for the “death penalty” or to “see blood”, as you would seem to deem any punishment that Officer Hubka may receive as a result of his clear negligence. Also, why the race and gender references, in relation to how Hubka may be dealt with? Please, sir, do not let yourself fall into the very hyperbole and over the top characterizations that you are accusing others of, just because we demand justice in this case!”
The letter that invoked all of this fury was just published yesterday in Voice, so I’m afraid the responses to it will continue for a few more days to come. For my part, I will continue to respond if I feel like I need to, but I hope the hot rhetoric will die down. I will keep you up to date on this tragic story, and the obviously strong feelings it engenders.
One Down, (At Least) One to Go
July 24, 2008. The news came very late in the evening last night, but the Board of Directors at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) apparently voted unanimously to give president Carolyn Smith her walking papers. Oh, and a $100 thousand going-away gift as well, to take the sting out of her forced departure. Jeez, even on her way out, she lards the pot with more green. At least she’s gone, though, and an inexcusable, but sad history at SEDC is now over. Indeed, Ms. Smith had the crocodile tears flowing at last evening’s meeting. More on Carolyn Smith in a moment.
I would argue, though, that the housecleaning over at SEDC is only half-done, at best. I (and hopefully the taxpayers of San Diego, too) believe that the board chairman, Artie “Chip” Owen, should be swept out of SEDC as quickly as possible, given his track record of approving the sneaky bonuses for Carolyn Smith and others at the agency, along with his glaringly obvious conflicts (yes, plural, not singular) of interest in representing more than one developer with business ties to SEDC. As mentioned in previous posts, one of those developers, Pacific Development Partners (PDP), currently doing business with SEDC, was willing to pay Mr. Owen as much as $100,000 a year to, well, uh… You get the point.
In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone gaining personal wealth in the building and development industry, including through the performance of a government contract. This is Finally, as to Carolyn Smith, I’m not sure that her ouster closes the book on her conduct at SEDC. At a minimum, I would hope that the Internal Revenue Service takes a good, hard look at Ms. Smith’s compensation practices in recent years. As I’ve already suggested, I believe the District Attorney and/or the State Attorney General’s office should investigate the corrupt practices at SEDC. Then,
Mayor Jerry Sanders and the City Comptroller, Greg Levin, have demanded an extensive and literal accounting of how funds are spread around at SEDC. Then the mayor, on Tuesday, slashed the funding of SEDC by two-thirds, to a level he and officials in his office determined would be just enough for the development agency to function pending the outcome of investigations into its financial practices. Following on the actions of the mayor’s office, comptroller Levin submitted a nearly thirty-page letter to SEDC Finance Director, Dante Dayacap, demanding extensive and detailed information on both payroll and administrative expenditures. Mr. Levin asserted in his letter to Dayacap that both sets of expenses, over the last four years, do not accord with generally accepted or expected financial standards for a nonprofit agency like SEDC. And Levin demands that the financial data, along with numerous other documents, such as tax forms and project expenditures, be provided by Dayacap and SEDC in just five business days! Good for Levin! At least he’s not messing around.
And then there’s the underwhelming reaction of City Councilmember, Tony Young, in whose district the SEDC is charged with conducting most of its business. Despite the overwhelming (and growing) body of evidence of misspending of taxpayer funds at SEDC, Mr. Young is strangely content to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting of investigating the agency. Here’s what Mr. Young forgets in his haste to do nothing: The San Diego City Council, of which he is a member, directly governs the activities of the City’s Redevelopment Agency, which in turn is responsible for oversight of SEDC. What about that governing relationship does Tony Young not understand?
Mr. Young, effective representation of the affairs of your district and of the city requires that you step up to the plate during the bad times and work to fix the problems that arise, especially when the scandal rears its ugly head in your backyard.
November 22, 2008. Will legal accountability finally come to SEDC? The U.S. Attorney’s office has opened a grand jury investigation into the financial and other scandals at SEDC. (Voice of San Diego.org.) Not surprisingly, to me anyway, the announcement of a federal investigation follows the news that some SEDC board members and agency staff were interviewed by FBI agents a couple of months ago. The FBI also seized computers from SEDC as part of its investigation. These actions are very serious business.
But I applaud the Feds for stepping in to take a close, legal look at the scandalous and even unlawful (remember the independent consultant’s report that defined some of the misconduct at SEDC as rising to the level of fraud?) behavior that now defines SEDC. It is the serious gravity of the sometimes illegal activity at SEDC that has outraged me as a citizen and taxpayer and kept me “on the case,” so to speak. The recent years of misconduct at SEDC have so dramatically exceeded the bounds of good government, transparency and accountability, I believe that federal prosecutions of certain SEDC officials, former and present, are entirely warranted. In the end, I hope criminal convictions and meaningful punishments will send the message to ALL government officials and officeholders that sneaky and dishonest misappropriation of tax dollars will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Regrettably, it sometime takes the heavy hand of the law to remind some of our public servants of their responsibilities and obligations to taxpayers.
Let the sledgehammer fall, and fall hard!
Reform at SEDC? Not Looking Like It.
November 22, 2008. Although I remain philosophically opposed to the continued existence of SEDC, for a number of reasons I have already explained, I was at least hopeful that reform would finally come to the agency when Mayor Sanders nominated a new board of directors to govern the actions and policies of the SEDC staff. The new board chairman, Cruz Gonzalez, was a member of the previous board, which clearly did not govern in a strong and effective manner, and allowed SEDC’s former president and former board chairman to run roughshod, resulting in financial and other scandals that have seriously damaged the reputation of SEDC.
But, alas, true reform at SEDC still seems to be far, far away, as demonstrated by a recent action of Cruz Gonzalez. SEDC has an unequivocal, clearly defined policy that all contracts valued at more than $50,000 require a vote of the board of directors to be approved. In fact, even those contracts valued less than $50,000 must be noticed to the board, although board approval is not required. Chairman Gonzalez apparently, and mystifyingly, chose to ignore the requirements of the $50,000 contract threshold, and awarded a no-bid contract worth $80,000 to a longtime SEDC consultant, Herman Collins. Voice of San Diego.org.
Following is a letter to the editor (unpublished) I sent to Voice of San Diego in response to this revelation about Cruz Gonzalez:
“I’ve stopped counting how many times I keep asking the questions, When will the sad saga at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation stop unfolding? And when will taxpayers finally be spared from continually footing the bill for the non-stop shenanigans that plague SEDC?
I think my letter says it all.
The Complaint is Filed
November 10, 2008. As I stated in my previous post, I have completed and submitted my letter of complaint, to the California Bar Association, against SEDC attorney Regina Petty. Following is the text of my letter to the Bar:
“November 7, 2008
3. Ms. Petty further violated the Act by initially redacting portions of the records without providing a written explanation as to why she believed the records contained privileged information. Ms. Petty compounded this violation by not providing a written explanation that it was the SEDC president or board of directors that asserted the privilege. By law, it is the client – in this case, SEDC – that must assert privilege, not the attorney.
Finally, I contend that Ms. Petty should be sanctioned by the Bar for her shocking and disturbing display of unprofessional conduct in her letter to the editor to Voice of
So, let me repeat: Regina Petty, more than anyone else, as an attorney, should always adhere to the full letter and spirit of the law. As demonstrated by her defiance in releasing her billing records, which is required by California law, Petty does not deserve to serve in her position as corporate counsel for a public agency. I contend that she clearly and deliberately violated the state’s public records laws. And I consequently believe that she must be sanctioned by the Bar Association.
The Bar has a Code of Professional Conduct, which defines the rules under which licensed attorneys in California must practice, without exception. Although every attorney should strive to perform his or her job to the highest ethical and professional standards, I would argue that an attorney serving in the public sector, using tax dollars, ought to set the bar for themself even higher. In my view, Regina Petty has badly failed that test.
November 2, 2008. SEDC attorney Regina Petty and the agency’s new, interim president and the board of directors finally came to their senses and grudgingly hoisted the white flag. Following a way-too-long, unlawful defiance of state public records laws, Petty and SEDC released a set of unredacted billing statements from Petty, detailing the recent legal work she completed for the agency, over how many hours, and at what hourly rate. This important information was requested by Voice of San Diego.org and by community activist Ian Trowbridge and his attorney.
Voice of San Diego.org reporter Will Carless has doggedly pursued Petty’s SEDC billing records for several weeks, as part of his efforts to flesh out the whole story regarding the scandal-plagued tenure of recently terminated agency president, Carolyn Y. Smith. Smith was accused of secretly padding the salaries of herself and others at SEDC, sometimes to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year. These secret funds were covertly paid for with taxpayer dollars, in such a way that an independent auditor deemed Smith’s actions as “fraud.” Trowbridge and his attorney separately demanded the release of Petty’s billing records, to go along with their lawsuit against SEDC regarding the payment of severance to Carolyn Smith in a way that violated state open meetings laws. It will be interesting, in the days ahead, to see what Carless and Trowbridge uncover in their respective examinations of the Petty billing statements.
Meanwhile, for my part, I will continue with my complaint to the California Bar Association concerning Regina Petty's lengthy refusal to release her unredacted billing statements. The case against Petty is indisputably clear: Under California law, any citizen, with few exceptions, may request the release of documents from a public, taxpayer-funded agency. The public records laws are very “open” in California, even allowing access to information about individual public employees, including their salaries, for example.
I will also be submitting letters to the respective presidents and board chairpersons at the San Diego Convention Center Corporation and the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, where Regina Petty also serves as “corporate counsel”. The leadership of these two organizations should understand and appreciate the deep concern on the part of taxpayers, like Trowbridge and me, when public servants deliberately squander our dollars on the one hand, or seek to hide their activities on the other hand. Petty is certainly guilty of the latter.
Honest public service demands no less than unquestioned openness and accountability from our officials. I will work ceaselessly to shine the light on these government officials.
My Second Coming! (Did I Just Say That???)
October 30, 2008. A few weeks ago, I related how my previous computer had an irreversible meltdown caused by a nasty virus. That was my only home computer, so my commentaries on here dropped dramatically.
Well, I now have a new computer, so look out!
If you’re a government employee or officeholder who’s shafting the taxpayers, or if you are proposing or implementing public policy that just makes no sense, or you’re engaged in some other ridiculous shenanigans (I love that word!) that do not pass the (fill in the blank here) test, I will call you out. You won’t like it.
As a public servant, you are expected to be effective, ethical and ever mindful of who you are supposed to be serving: The citizens and taxpayers, and not yourself.
So, get ready, ’cause here I come!
I Am Sorry, Regina, But You’re Petty!
Well, Petty, displaying lots of “integrity” and “competence,” wrote a letter to the editor to Voice, and she unloaded! Read her letter. In a rambling rant, she started just about every sentence with, “I am sorry that...”. Of course, if you read her venomous letter, she is sorry about nothing, and just trots out excuse after excuse for not complying with the State public records laws and releasing the bills that Carless – and now community activist Ian Trowbridge and his attorney, as well – demand. Remember, her fees for her “work” at SEDC are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Oh, and also, if she apparently has no time to produce public records, as required by law to do, how did she find the time to write a somewhat lengthy letter???
Well, her letter was just too much for me, so I wrote one of my own in response, putting her on notice. (Sometimes, Voice will publish my letters, sometimes they won’t. So far, no luck on this one...) Basically, I have promised her that, in light of her inexcusable obstinance in refusing to produce the demanded public records, I will:
1. Be back to speak before the SEDC board of directors, demanding that they compel Petty to produce her complete billing records, without unnecessary redaction, and as soon as possible.
2. File a complaint with the California Bar Association, informing them of Ms. Petty’s refusal to comply with State public records laws.
3. Inform the respective boards of directors at the Convention Center Corporation and at the San Diego County employees retirement system, where Petty also serves as “corporate counsel”, of her refusal to release public records at SEDC. Interestingly, Petty is apparently quite upfront and compliant in releasing public records related to her legal services rendered at each of those two entities. Why is she so defiant at SEDC? Are there things to hide in the way she has billed the SEDC (read, the taxpayers) for her work there? Given the allegedly fraudulent and lavish misuse of taxpayer funds at SEDC, under former president Carolyn Smith, is Petty afraid of revealing unwarranted financial largesse that came her way as well, above and beyond what would reasonably be charged by an attorney for the type of services she rendered? Even as an attorney, and not a policymaker, Petty needs to remember that “perception is reality” in politics.
The longer you delay and throw up fallacious excuses, Regina Petty, the worse things will be for you!
In the meantime, I will be working diligently in the days and weeks ahead to expose your foot-dragging and lack of professional conduct. You’ve really ticked off this citizen and taxpayer, and I’m motivated to do something about it. And I’m not the least bit “sorry”.
SEDC: Finally, Some Hopeful News
Absolutely No Shame Whatsoever
New SEDC Board to Smith: You’re Fired!
September 29, 2008. Last Wednesday night, I attended and spoke at the SEDC where president Carolyn Smith was finally told to take a hike and not to cast her crooked shadow across the entry door again. Even though the previous lackey SEDC board of directors, which was led by the underhanded Artie Owen, voted to fire Ms. Smith, they still allowed her up to 90 days to actually depart. But the newly constituted board, much to its credit, would have no more of those shenanigans, and demanded that Smith leave immediately. The new board chairman, Cruz Gonzalez, bent over backwards to be respectful to Smith, saying that she offered to leave voluntarily and that they accepted. I was obviously not a part of the closed door session that led to Smith’s departure, but Smith was on her way out last night, one way or another, so there was nothing magnanimous in her “offer” to leave.
Among my comments at the meeting last night:
> Carolyn Smith needs to go now, not October 21. On this matter, there is nothing to “consider” or debate.
> No “golden parachute” for Ms. Smith. In recent years, she has already padded her base salary enough. She neither needs nor deserves $100,000 in severance pay.
> Pacific Development Partners, which had an insider, “sweetheart” relationship with former SEDC board chairman, Artie Owen, should not be able to hold on to the renegotiated agreement it had to develop Valencia Business Park. The bidding process for the Valencia project should start back at square one, and be reopened to all interested developers.
> I thanked returning board members Cruz Gonzalez, who replaced Owen as board chairman; Rich Geisler; and Derryl Williams, all of whom tried unsuccessfully, under the Owen chairmanship, to get more answers about the secretive goings-on at SEDC.
> To Carolyn Smith, I stated that whatever legacy she had built in her years as president of SEDC, or was seeking to build, was destroyed by her malfeasance and fraudulent conduct in the past few years. I also spoke to her about her betrayal of the public trust that was given to her. Finally, I told Smith that I hope the District Attorney does indeed indict and prosecute her, and that if Ms. Smith were to be convicted, her sentencing include a prohibition on Smith ever holding another position where she would have access to taxpayer dollars.
> Regina Petty, SEDC corporate counsel, put on one of the worst acting jobs I have ever witnessed. Once it became clear to her that most of the board no longer wanted her services, she began her pouting, head bowed, “woe unto me” performance. The whole thing simply looked silly and ridiculous.
As I have stated, I do not support the continued existence of SEDC, but if it is going to remain, at least the new board looks like it will not tolerate the lack of transparency and accountability that has brought SEDC to its knees.
Death by Virus
9/11/08: Sorry, Terrorists, But We Are 7 Years Stronger!
SEDC: Now It’s the “F” Word, plus...
September 10, 2008. Well, just as many people thought, including me, an audit of Southeastern Economic Development Corportation (SEDC), officially released today, confirmed there was indeed a pattern at the agency of the “F” word: fraud. There is now no longer any justification or excuse for not launching a criminal investigation into the misconduct of departing president, Carolyn Smith; finance director, Dante Dayacap; and ousted SEDC board chairman, Artie “Chip” Owen.
In other recent SEDC and CCDC developments:
> The proposed 41-story hotel and condominium project at Market Street and Seventh Avenue has been officially terminated by the CCDC board of directors, following conflicts of interest violations on the part of departed president, Nancy Graham.
As the days go by and the seedy revelations of misconduct and lawbreaking at SEDC and CCDC continue to unfold, the overwhelming magnitude of the rot at the two agencies is just stunning. With that in mind, why is it so unreasonable or controversial to call for the dissolution of SEDC and CCDC, as I and others have done? And once again, how can anyone continue to defend the “quasi-independent” development corporation model, not used anywhere else in California, which adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, at a time when the City of San Diego cannot afford it?
September 10, 2008. Last night, San Diego City Council, District 3 candidates, Todd Gloria and Stephen Whitburn, faced off in their first general election forum and debate. By their own admission, Gloria and Whitburn both admitted they would probably vote the same nearly 100% of the time as a member of the City Council. For the most part, nothing I heard at the forum leads me to believe there are major differences between them. So far, as the saying goes, it’s “six of one, half-a-dozen of another.”
Todd Gloria has been pointedly criticized – and certainly was again last night, by a couple of the audience members – for his ready acceptance of thousands of dollars of contributions from developers. In answer, Gloria did not express any reservations at all about accepting contributions from anyone, saying, “Campaigns are expensive and I have to raise money. I don’t have the means to fund my own campaign. Still, that does not mean when it comes down to voting that I am beholden to anyone.” “Developer money” is a dirty word, so to speak, to many District 3 residents and voters, who have strong convictions about the neighborhood character and historic preservation that is especially unique to this district. These critics point to developments like Kensington Terrace, and the now-defunct 301 University project, which has instead morphed into a much bigger, twin tower project that seems headed to approval by city officials. Gloria and Whitburn have both criticized the new University Avenue project and did so again last night.
(As an aside, Gloria was recently forced to return a campaign contribution he repeatedly solicited from Nancy Graham, former president of CCDC, who resigned after unlawful conflicts of interest arose from her tenure at the agency. (See story below.) In recent days and weeks, other San Diego officeholders and candidates have been fined for seeking campaign dollars from individual city employees, which is prohibited.)
Affordable housing was another major issue that was discussed at the forum by the two candidates. Gloria highlighted his experience as a City Housing Commissioner in helping to add to the stock of subsidized housing, while Whitburn cited his credentials on the issue as a member of the North Park Planning Committee. Between the two, Whitburn is a much stronger advocate for more subsidized housing in District 3, while Gloria would like to see such housing more evenly distributed throughout the city and other council districts.
Given the many financial and city employee pension scandals that have plagued the City in recent years, both candidates were asked for their ideas about fiscal and budgetary accountability. Both men emphasized the need for improved auditing at City Hall, with Gloria favoring internal audits and his ability to interpret them, and Whitburn wanting more external, independent auditing and oversight. On an issue that has received a lot of recent news reporting and which, to me, is a sort of poster child of where things can go badly wrong in government, Whitburn did say that he would look at abolishing SEDC and CCDC. On that subject, he and I are in complete agreement.
So, what do Whitburn and Gloria, in their respective views, see as the differences between them? In a word, experience. Whitburn claims a more well-rounded work experience, in both the private and non-profit sectors. He is currently a spokesman for American Red Cross, and also mentioned his many years as a radio journalist, where he was able to observe and report on what he feels is the best and the worst of municipal governance. Whitburn also expressed the importance of his experience in grassroots organizing.
Gloria highlighted his years of public service, as a housing commissioner, district director for Congresswoman Susan Davis, and his well-known reputation for tirelessly attending community meetings and volunteering for many causes. It is his government-only career, though, that often nets him criticism for not being truly well-rounded professionally, and for insulating him from the real-world issues that private sector businesspersons face every day in having to deal with government bureaucracy and the seemingly endless laws and regulations that affect businesses, especially small business.
So, again, one candidate forum just doesn't give me all of the information I need to decide if I will endorse either Todd Gloria or Stephen Whitburn. They are both friendly, competent and able individuals. But neither of them has “closed the deal” with me. I will attend upcoming forums and debates to see if anything changes, but I feel that both of them need to go beyond the generalities and platitudes and start telling us what they will each really accomplish as a prospective councilmember.
SEDC and CCDC: The Gamesmanship and Meltdowns Continue
September 1, 2008. Consider, since my last dispatch, the following developments in the scandals at SEDC and CCDC:
Seriously, though, I ask, how much more of this “stuff” are we, the citizens and taxpayers of San Diego, going to have to put up with? At what point do we finally reach a critical mass with these nonstop scandals, where we say, enough is enough, and that it’s time to dissolve SEDC and CCDC?
…And “Stable” Makes Three
The SEDC Lame Ducks: Defiant Quacks!
Completely Cooked
August 23, 2008. Well, it took longer to unfold, but the inherent weaknesses of the so-called “development corporations” in San Diego are causing another implosion, this time at Center City Development Corporation (CCDC). CCDC is charged with implementing and managing “redevelopment” in a wide area in and around downtown, including East Village and Little Italy. At CCDC, it was once again the agency president, Nancy Graham, whose dishonesty and misconduct demonstrates that the quasi-independent, nonprofit development corporation model is broken. These agencies escape the kind of direct oversight and accountability they should have, if they were under the control of the City’s already existing Redevelopment Agency, which is San Diego City Council.
And again, it was the fine reporters and staff at Voice of San Diego which have detailed the wrongdoing at CCDC. In the CCDC case, president Nancy Graham suddenly resigned a couple of weeks ago when the evidence began mounting that she had an unlawful conflict of interest with a developer who was awarded the contract to construct a massive building and public parking complex downtown, on Market Street. What is worse, in this case, is that her relationship with the developer, Related Co., followed her to San Diego from her previous post, in Florida. In Florida, Graham and her ex-husband netted millions of dollars by working with another subsidiary of Related Co. to build a project there. Apparently, Graham just couldn’t resist the temptation to continue her relationship with the California subsidiary of Related Co. But the conflict-of-interest laws for public servants and officeholders are pretty clear in this state, and Graham did not heed them. So, here is my latest letter to the editor at Voice of San Diego (presently unpublished) regarding the CCDC fiasco:
“Nearly two weeks ago, another writer submitted a letter to Voice about the mounting woes at Center City Development Corporation (CCDC). That letter was presciently entitled, “CCDC: The Slower-Cooking Scandal”. I contend that, not only is CCDC now completely “cooked,” it may not even be palatable any longer and needs to be thrown out. And again, as with its sister agency, Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC), you had a rogue president who tried to play fast and loose with the rules, and now the ship is sinking.
Band-Aid Solutions, For Now
August 19, 2008. The scandal at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) continues to plod along, with no real meaningful solutions at hand. As reported by Voice of San Diego.org, a couple of new actions are occurring:
First, Ian Trowbridge, a former academic researcher and a San Diego City Council candidate in 2005, has filed a lawsuit against SEDC, alleging a violation of the Brown Act, a state law which forbids government agencies from holding meetings behind closed doors without public notice of the items to be discussed. Voice of San Diego.org. At the notorious meeting in question, while the SEDC board of directors (all but one of whose terms is expired) voted to fire the embattled agency’s president, Carolyn Smith, they also agreed to provide her with $100,000 in severance pay! Along with an additional, dubious provision by the board members to indemnify Ms. Smith from potential litigation arising from her misconduct, it was the six-figure departure bonus that prompted Trowbridge to file his lawsuit.
In the other SEDC-related news of the day, Mayor Jerry Sanders began the process of replacing some of the expired board seats at the agency, with the nominations of four individuals. Voice of San Diego.org. While Mayor Sanders sees the replacement of SEDC board members as a “major step” toward reform of the agency, I respectfully disagree.
I personally like the mayor. I respect his long record of achievements during his career at the San Diego Police Department, and his periods of service thereafter at United Way and the Red Cross. This year, I voted to reelect Mayor Sanders. But I also strongly believe the “development corporation” model, as evidenced by SEDC, is a badly broken model. This core belief on my part prompted another letter to the editor today from me to Voice of San Diego:
“It is somewhat heartening to read in today’s Voice of San Diego of two positive developments – for now – in the ongoing scandal at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC).
SEDC: Abolish It!
August 14, 2008. Those of you who have been following my thoughts on the unfolding scandal at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) know that I have been very critical of the obvious conflict of interest on the part of “Chip” Owen, the chairman of the SEDC board of directors. Last night, the board members (whose terms are all expired, remember) voted not to remove Mr. Owen as chairman. In my book, that breaks the camel’s back, so to speak, when the SEDC board cannot find the will to effectively fire Owen. This prompted the following letter from me, which I submitted to Voice of San Diego.org, the online newspaper that has heroically uncovered much of the misconduct at SEDC:
“Until now, I, as a concerned citizen and taxpayer, have practiced restraint as I have followed the reporting on the abuse of tax dollars at Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC). In Voice of San Diego and elsewhere, we have read reporting on: gross padding of base salaries by SEDC president Carolyn Smith, finance director Dante Dayacap, and others on staff, using taxpayer dollars; extravagant meals and other pricey perks that most working people do not enjoy or reasonably expect from their jobs, using taxpayer dollars; and a six-figure severance package for Carolyn Smith, allowing her to take up to 90 days to depart the job from which she was fired, using taxpayer dollars.
When You Get Behind Closed Doors
How Would You Like Your Steak, Ma’am?
To the Guv: No! And, Yes!
After a Dog’s Death: Us vs. Them?
Tony Young: Leader? Carolyn Smith: Scofflaw!
July 18, 2008. Whew! Things are really moving fast and furious (in more than one way) now in the case of Carolyn Smith, the embattled president of SEDC, with new calls for her resignation following the revelations of huge sums of agency funds going into her pocket in recent years. Most importantly, San Diego City Councilman Tony Young has finally, in this particular case, demonstrated some leadership and political wisdom by joining the chorus of officials demanding that Ms. Smith step down immediately. Remember, SEDC performs most of its redevelopment work in Young’s Fourth Council District.
Today, Councilman Young added his name to the growing list of city officials and others who clearly see the likely unlawful misconduct of Carolyn Smith, along with SEDC finance director, Dante Dayacap, and board chairman, Artie “Chip” Owen. Indeed, City Attorney Mike Aguirre today announced that his office is assessing whether the “bonuses” and “acknowledgments” that went to Smith, Dayacap and others at SEDC were a misuse of public funds, i.e., tax dollars. In his statement, Councilman Young said, “...when the very existence of SEDC is threatened by a continuing barrage of allegations of questionable practices and lack of appropriate Board of Director oversight, it is clear to me that management and the Board must take a course of action that is in the best interest of the community.” Voice of San Diego.org.
In their memo, Mayor Sanders and Councilmembers Young, Donna Frye and Ben Hueso gave Carolyn Smith until 5:00pm today to submit her resignation. At the deadline, board chairman Owen stated that Smith would not resign, and that Smith’s employment status would be discussed at an already scheduled board meeting on Wednesday, July 23.
But think about that. What a tangled web! In my (and others) opinion, Owen is directly complicit in approving and granting the ill-gotten bonuses that Smith benefited from. And Owen himself has also received very large sums of money – as much as $100,000 per year – from a developer, Pacific Development Partners, with direct business ties to SEDC. Now Owen both “giveth” and “taketh away”: He gives Smith the covert bonuses and then smacks her down for taking them? How utterly unbelievable!
’It Hits the Fan: The Beginning
July 16, 2008.