continued But Miller ruffled the establishment's feathers. After serving six terms as D.A., he was defeated in the 1994 primary. In February of this year, he was nominated to the Ethics Commission. If confirmed, there would be an Ethics Commission member respected for ethics. But Miller's former political consultant, Bob G. Glaser of the La Jolla Group, was contacted by the press and said Miller owed him $19,573.67, plus interest, for the 1994 campaign.
Records show that Glaser submitted the bill October 1, 1994; the election had been in June. On September 3, 1996, he turned the matter over to a collection agency. On November 7, 1996, M. James Lorenz, Miller's campaign manager and now a federal judge, wrote to the agency, "The amount alleged to be due is an amount that exceeds the budget as projected by the La Jolla Group and was not approved in advance as required." The letter also pointed out that Miller had been sued because of an act by a former employee of the La Jolla Group. Miller had not been reimbursed by the La Jolla Group, which had indemnified him.
Glaser says that the campaign expenses had been approved 30 days in advance. Miller should have reported the billing dispute, says Glaser. Miller disputes that. The lawsuit was generated by an intern, not an employee, and Lorenz's legal interpretation of indemnification was a stretch, claims Glaser. Miller should not sit on a commission ruling on campaign violations, avers Glaser. The Union-Tribune took that view editorially.
Miller is being muddied by minutiae -- an old San Diego ploy. The so-called Ethics Commission's mandate is to fry bigger fish -- lobbyists, consultants, city employees -- and not simply political campaign violators. No one is more qualified to do that than Miller. And that's why he won't be named.