destroyed documents at City Hall

From the Union Tribune -

The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office are investigating the destruction of documents at San Diego City Hall after revelations that employees in the city treasurer's office purged numerous records last month.

FBI agents served a federal grand jury subpoena on City Attorney Michael Aguirre yesterday. He said it demands that city officials turn over by 9 a.m. Thursday all records and communications related to the destruction, removal or "cleaning" of documents at City Hall.

The request covers the period from Jan. 1, 2004, to the present, but makes special note of any documents removed or destroyed in December.

Aguirre disclosed on Friday that he learned the day before, from an unidentified city employee, that numerous records and some e-mails were destroyed in the city treasurer's office in early December.

Our Money

I think the San Diego Airport Agency was feeling a little left out, by not wasting enough money like all the other parts of the city government, so they had to do a little of their own.

From the

The documents indicate the board has spent a total of $44,190 at its retreats, held in La Jolla, Carlsbad, Dehesa and Borrego Springs.

A Semi-Private Parade

From the Washington Post -

"THERE WERE, in the end, protesters along the route of President Bush's inaugural parade. It is conceivable that the president might have even caught a glimpse of them. What there were not nearly enough of, however, were ordinary people: Washingtonians, out-of-towners or anyone at all who was neither a Bush donor with tickets to the bleachers nor a demonstrator with a permit to wave a sign. This was not an accident. In advance of the inauguration, the National Park Service granted the Presidential Inaugural Committee exclusive rights to nearly all of the sidewalk space along Pennsylvania Avenue, space to which the public had no access. When Post reporters asked the Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security and the D.C. police this week where the public would be able to stand, no answer was forthcoming. Grudgingly, a Park Service spokesman said on Wednesday that the public might be able to find some open areas east of Seventh Street or west of 12th Street, a statement that did not exactly encourage casual parade-goers.

Reports from those who did try to attend varied. Some stood for hours in the cold, trying to get through checkpoints. Some reported swifter entrance. But many, we fear, simply didn't bother to go, discouraged by the unwelcoming atmosphere of the inauguration with the heaviest security in history, the negative advance publicity, the closed streets and the phalanx of police officers lined up to protect the politicians from the people. Maybe that's what the post-Sept. 11 world has to look like, but on a day ostensibly dedicated to the spread of freedom around the world, it wasn't the best advertisement for American freedom either. "

more pension fund fun...

Do you know who these people are?

Lamont Ewell
Lisa Irvine
Les Girard
Kelly Salt
Rudy Graciano
Cecilia San Pedro
Phil Phillips

From the Union Tribune -

SAN DIEGO – The city attorney today released the names of four more San Diego officials subpoenaed to testify next month before the Securities and Exchange Commission in its investigation of city finances.

Deputy City Attorney Kelly Salt, City Auditor Accounting Division Manager Rudy Graciano, City Auditor Accountant Cecilia San Pedro and former City Auditor Accounting Division Manager Phil Phillips, were ordered to testify before the SEC in February, according to City Attorney Michael Aguirre.

Last month, Aguirre announced that City Manager Lamont Ewell, Financial Management Director Lisa Irvine and Assistant City Attorney Les Girard were also subpoenaed by the SEC.

The SEC is investigating potential violations of federal securities laws related to accounting irregularities discovered in the way the city disclosed to potential investors the scope of its pension fund debt.

I love this city...government

From the Union Tribune -

Nearly half the City Council will soon be tapping supporters to offset mounting legal bills in a new chapter for political fund-raising in San Diego.

Mayor Dick Murphy and Councilman Ralph Inzunza established funds to pay for legal expenses in the week after a new law permitted it Jan. 5. Councilwoman Donna Frye established three legal funds last week.

Councilman Michael Zucchet plans to open a similar fund.

Inzunza's and Zucchet's trial on federal corruption charges is scheduled to begin May 3. Murphy and Frye have been involved in several lawsuits over last year's mayoral election.

In August, the council approved the change to allow elected officials or candidates to collect $250 per contributor to cover costs of a campaign finance audit or of any legal proceeding related to their campaigns or duties in office.

Previously, the only way elected officials could raise money for a legal defense was through campaign contributions. The change lets supporters who gave to a campaign give again to a legal defense.

Five lawsuits have been filed over the Nov. 2 mayoral election in which Murphy narrowly defeated Frye. Murphy says he has tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and Frye says she owed at least $49,000 through December.

The city's Ethics Commission advised Murphy and Frye a month ago that each could collect $250 a person for each lawsuit for their legal defense funds.

More happenings down at city hall

From the Union Tribune -

John Kern, who shaped the politics and policies of San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy from his days as a councilman, announced his resignation as chief of staff yesterday.

John Kern (left) and Mayor Dick Murphy talked in 2003 before the start of a news conference. Kern, who has been the mayor's chief of staff for four years, announced his resignation yesterday.
The sudden announcement, less than 48 hours after Murphy's fifth State of the City address, comes at a time of turmoil among the leadership of the nation's seventh largest city. City Manager Lamont Ewell plans to step down in July, and the mayor is facing a legal challenge to his re-election.

The city's finances are also in a precarious position, with two overdue annual audits, a $1.2 billion pension deficit and no ability to borrow money. "

uummmmm drinking water

Not that we have any money to spear, but now our local government is wasting it by not notifying the state about water quality problems. How many text books can $25000 buy? And we wasted it by not making a simple phone call? I don’t even want to think about what this implies about the quality of our drinking water in this city. How long did it take to figure out if the test was bad, and how many people continued to drink their tap water in that time? The city put us all at risk by not letting us know.

From the Union Tribune -

"The city of San Diego will pay a $25,000 fine for waiting too long to tell state regulators about a potential health hazard in its drinking water system.

In mid-November, the city's water department faced the possibility of E. coli bacteria in a water supply with nearly 270,000 service connections. City workers turned up the bacteria, which indicates human or animal waste, in a Nov. 12 test of San Diego's drinking water system on Desert View Drive in La Jolla. That test was made necessary by the discovery of total coliform bacteria, a possible indicator of E. coli, in the area a few days earlier.

Yesterday the head of the city's water department and the deputy city manager who oversees the water system said an error in the testing led to a false positive for the system. They said drinking water was never in jeopardy.

"There has been no contamination of the drinking water system," Deputy City Manager Richard Mendes said. "The water is safe. The water has always been safe."

A state official countered that the city offered no proof of an improper test and also broke the law by not notifying the state Department of Health Services within 24 hours of a test showing the harmful E. coli bacteria. "

State of the City

San Diego Mayor State of the city speech
Here...

In case you missed it...

From the Union Tribune -

SAN DIEGO – Tony Young was sworn in today to fill San Diego's 4th District City Council seat, which became vacant last August with the unexpected death of Charles Lewis.

"I serve you, and I intend to do that with all the dignity I can muster, all the dedication I can find and all the passion I have," Young told residents of San Diego during his inaugural speech.

Young, 38, was Lewis' chief of staff. He has been in charge of the 4th District office since the councilman's death.

Following a brief ceremony at City Hall, Young vowed to continue Lewis' legacy and the work he started in the district.

Chargers

Wow... my friend over at Economics with a face gets it right for once...

"...Whether Nate's field goal attempt that drifted a couple yards to the right will swing public opinion in the other direction remains to be seen. But one things clear, a great playoff run by the Chargers would have all but guaranteed that they would have remained in the city. It also would have all but guaranteed taxpayers of San Diego would have been the losers.

It always shocks me that millionaire players and billionaire owners feel the need to take money from everyday people to fund their line of work. You would think it would be commonsense that if these stadiums were such great deals, they could finance them on their own and wouldn't need taxpayers subsidies. Unfortunately, the excitement of your home team winning is a powerful thing and can override this sentiment. "

The world we live in...

Now this article is a little harsh, but every once in a while, I find myself wondering the same thing. While reading the news, I catch myself thinking how is this current events, it sounds like bad fiction. Like how is it possible that the House of Representative’s would ever consider LOWERING their ethical standards?

From the New York Times Editorial Page -

by PAUL KRUGMAN
I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.

Mo Money

Wow I want to work for the government...

From the Union Tribune -

Proposed county raises
San Diego County's nine elected officials would get raises under a proposal that goes before the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

County supervisor
Current annual salary $115,070
Proposed annual salary* $143,838
Percent change 25.0%

Sheriff
Current annual salary $160,000
Proposed annual salary* $198,000
Percent change 23.8%

District attorney
Current annual salary $149,739
Proposed annual salary* $196,000
Percent change 30.9%

Treasurer-tax collector
Current annual salary $119,000
Proposed annual salary* $145,000
Percent change 21.8%

Assessor-recorder-county clerk
Current annual salary $159,037
Proposed annual salary* $166,982
Percent change 5.0%

*The supervisors' raises would take effect April 2. The raises for the sheriff, district attorney and treasurer-tax collector would take effect March 4. The raise for the assessor-recorder-county clerk would take effect Jan.

More on Ethics

From the NY Times Editorial Page -

Congressional Republicans are actually trying to claim the side of the angels in their forced retreat from defending the ethical lapses of the majority leader Tom DeLay. "I feel like we have just taken a shower," one G.O.P. lawmaker said. Not hardly. While taking a half-step from Mr. DeLay's more embarrassing machinations, the Republican majority made sure to strike a potentially lethal blow to the enfeebled House ethics process.

A rules change engineered by the leadership means that corruption complaints against lawmakers will automatically expire if the evenly divided ethics committee finds itself in a 5-to-5 party-line standoff. As hobbled as the old system was, a standoff at least meant that the complaint went to a subcommittee for investigation. That produced three warnings for Mr. DeLay last year.

Speaker Dennis Hastert is also reported to be intent on purging the current chairman, Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican who shocked his party by suddenly taking the job seriously. Mr. Hefley dared to sign off on the three admonishments of Mr. DeLay for cutting ethical corners by buttering up lobbyists, arm-twisting for floor votes and siccing federal agents on the Democrats who fled his gerrymandering intrusion into the Texas Statehouse. Hardly a career firebrand, Mr. Hefley, if he is to go, should be replaced by someone truly dedicated to rebuilding the House's tattered ethical reputation.

An unbowed Mr. DeLay was able to rally the G.O.P. troops in November for a shameless rules change that would have meant he wouldn't have to step aside as leader should he be indicted in a Texas grand jury inquiry into his fund-raising activities. But even Mr. DeLay had to endorse the scrapping of this shield as he faced growing resistance this week from Republicans concerned that his ethical arrogance had become a defining issue for the Democrats.

Still, the Republicans' belated realization that they needed to put limits on Mr. DeLay's demands for ethical sanctuary would have seemed more sincere if they'd done without the sleight of hand that makes a greater mockery of the ethics process.

City Council District 4

From the Union Tribune -

Residents of San Diego's 4th District voiced a clear preference for their current leadership yesterday, choosing Tony Young over former Councilman George Stevens to fill the empty City Council seat.

Young, who drew nearly 60 percent of the vote, will take over for his best friend, Charles Lewis, who died unexpectedly in August. For two years, Young, 38, has worked at City Hall as Lewis' chief of staff, and he promised voters he would continue the work Lewis started two years ago.

Recall

From the Union Tribune -

San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy is barely four weeks into his second term and already there is talk of trying to remove him from office via recall.

For now the talk is relegated to the margins of San Diego civic life – chatter among the political class plus some letters to the editor – but there are indications it could easily turn serious.

"We've had a number of inquiries – requests for information on the recall procedure," City Clerk Charles Abdelnour said yesterday.

re: Why I dislike Thomas

The other day Mr. Mork of Economices with a Face took me to task for the title "Why I dislike Thomas" saying

Wouldn't a more appropriate title be "Why I Disagree with Thomas", "Why Thomas' Opinions are Wrong", or "Why I Would Never Want Thomas as our Chief Justice"?

Well, I was hoping that it was obvious to anyone who read the post, that I don't personally Know Mr. Thomas, I only Know of him in a professional sense, so any comments I made about him do not reflect how I feel about him as a person, he could be a great guy for all I know. But I don't know, and that’s the point. All I know are the decisions he makes about how my government lets me live My life, and those I do not like. But I guess some people find it easier to change the debate into who hates who, instead of addressing the issues. So to remove that excuse for not addressing the question at hand I change the title to "Why I don't trust Thomas".

I do find it interesting that Mr. Mork included the quote:

Well that’s what is being told me. That doesn't make any sense. Right?”

You are right, "is being told me" doesn’t make any sense. Now I am not an English major, as you can tell but doesn’t that sound funny to you?

Ethics?

Who ever hear of RELAXING ethics rules?

from the AP -

WASHINGTON - The new Congress convenes with House Republicans, leery of a bruising floor fight, stepping back from plans to significantly relax ethics rules that ensnared Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

GOP leaders stressed that they didn't want the ethics issue to sidetrack their greater goals for this session of Congress, such as overhauling the Social Security system.

"It would have been the right thing to do, but it was becoming a distraction," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., referring to a relaxation in ethics rules including one that would have allowed party heads to retain their posts even if indicted.

Happy New Year

I have been on vacation for the last couple of weeks.... but now I am back