• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

One week before a coalition of shipbuilders submitted more than 53,000 signatures to initiate a referendum aimed at overturning the city council's update of the Barrio Logan Community Plan, city attorney Jan Goldsmith was at work, meeting behind the scenes with the same shipbuilders and lobbyists to discuss the process.

Internal emails obtained by the Reader show Chris Wahl from Southwest Strategies, a lobbying firm hired by the Protect Our Jobs Coalition, contacted the City Attorney's Office to schedule a private meeting with Goldsmith.

"On behalf of my client, General Dynamics NASSCO, I would like to request a meeting next week, if possible with City Attorney Goldsmith," reads the opening passage from Wahl's October 24 email. "The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Barrio Logan issues, including next steps related to the referendum of the Community Plan."

Attendees, according to Wahl's email, were Matt Luxton, chief financial officer for NASSCO, Sarah Strang, the shipbuilder's director of communications, and Wahl.

On October 28, Goldsmith's assistant, Carmen Sandoval, responded, "Great, we will see you all then."

The executives and the city attorney then met behind closed doors on Tuesday, October 29, from 3:15 to 3:45 p.m., according to a calendar entry made by Goldsmith's Office.

On October 31, the coalition delivered the 53,000 signatures to the City Clerk's Office. Those signatures were gathered in less than one month's time at a cost of $140,000. The drive, however, wasn't without controversy. Complaints were made about alleged false statements made by the signature-gatherers who were camped outside grocery stores in search of support. The complaints focused on one false claim: that the Navy’s shipyard would leave town if the Community Plan Update was adopted, taking more than 42,000 jobs.

On November 14, the Environmental Health Coalition filed suit against the City Clerk’s Office and the Protect Our Jobs Coalition over the false claims, alleging the claims about the Navy leaving scared residents into signing the petition.

And yet, despite the city council having already voted in favor of the update, Goldsmith refused to stand beside them and refused to delay the validation until the allegations of false claims were looked into.

Faced with few options, the city council, on Tuesday, December 17, voted to send the referendum to the ballot. — but not without some choice words for Goldsmith.

"I would like to direct the city attorney to join the Environmental Health Coalition in opposing in court the efforts to roll back the council’s action," interim-mayor Todd Gloria said in his opening remarks before the vote, as transcribed by CityBeat. "A majority of this council has stood up for this plan, and I think that this city should be on record as supporting the plan."

In response to a question about the meeting, Goldsmith's spokesperson Tom Mitchell wrote on December 20, "NASSCO representatives came to the City Attorney’s office to inform us that the petition was going to be filed and ask about the City’s process. They were told that the City Clerk would outline the next steps." Mitchell said Maland issued that outline in a November 4 memo. 

Community members and those fighting to defeat the referendum believe the city attorney shouldn't be meeting behind closed doors with any groups that are intent on overturning decisions made by the council.

"I am shocked and believe that it is unethical for the City Attorney to have this meeting," was the reaction from associate director for the Environmental Health Coalition Georgette Gomez upon learning of the meeting. "[Goldsmith's] office insisted to us that they were neutral. [The Environmental Health Coalition] is outraged that City Attorney Goldsmith appears to be conspiring with the shipyards against the community and the council."

Livia Borak, the attorney representing Gomez and the Environmental Health Coalition, agrees.

"A meeting with the proponents of the referendum is totally inappropriate," writes Borak. "It certainly raises questions in light of the city attorney’s position that his office is neutral on the matter and his purported unwillingness to help either side."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

Sjtorres Dec. 21, 2013 @ 2:12 p.m.

This is an article in search of a story.

1

JamesRhodes Dec. 21, 2013 @ 2:32 p.m.

LOL Really digging here. Good thing no one gets their news from here.

Anyhow, Reader still has good restaurant reviews.

0

Dorian Hargrove Dec. 21, 2013 @ 3:58 p.m.

If you think this is such a reach then answer me one question: Why is the City Attorney, an elected official who works solely for the Mayor, City Departments, and Council, meeting with anyone other than the Mayor and Council to discuss policy issues or outlining the steps to a referendum?

Actually, make that two questions: Why would the City Attorney advise/inform any outside special interest group of how to overturn a council land-use decision?

The signatures hadn't even been turned in yet, much less validated.

Looking forward to reading your response.-dH

5

glenn Dec. 21, 2013 @ 4:12 p.m.

...you are makng an assumption that advice was given about how to overturn a land use decision. The meeting was requested to go over the referendum process. Something that others involved in this process could (should) have done as well.

You are mistaken as to the role of the city attorney. Look up explaination from: Aguire, Mike.
Every work day the city attorneys office meets dozens of people on dozens of issues. The City Attorneys office represents the city in all of those cases. The city attorney is not the private attorney for other elected officials. He and the office works for the city and it's residents while supporting the council and the mayor.

0

Dorian Hargrove Dec. 22, 2013 @ 2:07 p.m.

The reason I said advise/inform was in response to doubts about the merits of this story. That said, I agree that the City Attorney should meet with different groups. However, this is slightly different than your everyday meeting.

This group requested a meeting with the City's legal counsel, one that would soon be on the same side of a lawsuit over the referendum process, to discuss the impending referendum. Keep in mind, this is before the signatures were even submitted, let alone validated.

So, why is the City Attorney meeting with anyone but city officials to lay out the process? This is not his job. If information is what the group was seeking, why not place a phone call to a Deputy City Attorney? Why a meeting with the City Attorney? Those questions are what makes this meeting newsworthy. thx-dH

2

laplayaheritage Dec. 22, 2013 @ 8:33 p.m.

The City Clerk is the contact for the Group demanding a referendum. A private meeting with the City Attorney is a breach of Attorney-Client privilege.

0

dwbat Dec. 22, 2013 @ 12:26 p.m.

Nobody reads the news in the Reader? The Reader reportedly has a circulation of around 170,000. And readers are NOT just reading the restaurant reviews.

1

dwbat Dec. 22, 2013 @ 9:28 a.m.

False statements were made by the signature-gatherers. I know, because one such person lied to me outside Albertsons. I challenged her misstatements and refused to sign. I believe she was coached by someone, in order to get more signatures. Of course, she got paid by the signature so she went along with the ruse.

1

jnojr Dec. 23, 2013 @ 1:24 p.m.

On the rare occasion that I stop for a signature gatherer, I shush them and read the language myself. I don't want to hear what they think it is, or what they'd like me to think it is… I want to know what the initiative actually is.

0

HonestGovernment Dec. 22, 2013 @ 11:19 a.m.

Good investigative reporting of what happened and how, who thinks what about it, and a related lawsuit. Not sure why some people don't want this reported...

It's always good to know with whom the City Attorney meets. He doesn't post his meetings on the City Atty's webpage. I can assure you from first-hand experience that he does not meet with people who disagree with him, or vice versa. It's not hard to assume that he agrees with the actions and goals of those who manage to obtain a face-to-face.

The public should know, and the Reader is where we go to find out. Thanks for the doing the footwork, Dorian.

3

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close