Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Response to #53 & #55: I am not defending Tom Story one bit, but this is not an evaluation of comparative corruption and ethics. What Aguirre did in that case was an unethical abuse of his power, not a mere slip of an over-zealous personality. Maybe you get one pass for that as a new attorney, but not a seasoned lawyer like Aguirre. If Story is a crook, if Murphy is a crook, if McGrory is crook, fine. But this effort to keep pointing fingers at others to somehow ignore Aguirre's many ethical and legal transgressions is curious indeed. If the goal is to bring light to corruption and abuse of power, then why not shine the light everywhere, rather than just where we want to look? I harbor no personal ill will towards Aguirre. He's generally a pretty nice guy. But I also saw him in action first hand, behind closed doors. I have dozens of friends and collegues who have, too. The image of the martyred reformer falsely accused of wrongdoing betrays reality. And you don't have to rely on those who know from the inside to see this; the facts available to the public speak for themselves. It's just a matter of honestly judging the actions of each person individually on the merits. I really don't understand all the resistance to this.— February 26, 2009 2:40 p.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Don, you are presenting the false dichotemy of it must be one or the other. I am saying we must judge people on their own merits, not "what would you rather have." I make no apologies for Gwinn, but your objections to Gwinn are abosulutely irrelevant to Aguirre's own conduct. While Aguirre is clearly not part of the corrupt establishment of City Hall, that does not mean he is not corrupt in his own right! Perhaps my "ilk" are too close to the reality of Aguirre to give his abuse of power and corruption a pass just because there are other problems in the public square.— February 25, 2009 2 p.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Don, here's a refresher on the Tom Story prosecution from the Court's ruling: "It is also uncontested that Mr. Aguirre himself took on the investigation of the cases, personally interviewing witnesses and personally offering them immunity for their testimony (in support of the civil case)." It was uncontested Aguirre used his role as a criminal prosecutor to gain advantage in his civil case. This is not part of some unethical judicial conspiracy. This conduct alone could cost Aguirre his bar card. As for the $20k sanction for shoddy legal work on the pension case, Aguirre didn't fight it, but paid it personally - a tacit admission from someone who seems to fight every allegation made against him. And Aguirre's office admitted to non-compliance with the PRA requests of his office for dubious reasons. That judge noted: "the City Attorney has casually reversed the burden in § 6255(a), stating "it does not appear" the public interest in disclosing the records outweighs the public interest in withholding them. It is the other way around: The City Attorney must justify withholding documents by a showing the public interest in not disclosing the records "clearly outweighs" the public interest in disclosing them, referring to the facts of that particular case. The error is compounded by arguing the balance tips further toward nondisclosure, "especially since you have indicated that these records of for personal use." The "personal use" exemption is repeated in the City Attorney's brief at p.18:24-25: "the balance favors nondisclosure because no public interest in disclosure is apparent." "Access to public records is a "fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state" (§ 6250), not something to be brushed aside because a citizen seeks only to inform himself. More to the point, § 6257.5 prohibits limiting access based on the purpose for which the records are sought. These careless misstatements of law in the City Attorney's October 18, 2007, letter are alarming, but this court will not assume misconduct when a lack of scholarship adequately explains the result." As you can see, Aguirre did not want to release public information about his own office and used "legal" justification for doing so that even a first year municipal lawyer would know is B.S., the hipocrisy of "transparent government" notwithstanding. I seriously cannot see how anyone can gloss over all this as no big deal. I recognize others in public service may have their own ethical issues, but that is irrelevant to these and many other facts about Aguirre. He may have been well intentioned for the City, and others may have been out for him as much as he was out for them. But his conduct while in office must be judged on its own merits, and so far I have not seen reason to excuse it.— February 24, 2009 11:29 a.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Don, I understand your frustration with the media not paying enough attention to the City's financial crisis. But I also think it's a disservice to refer to Aguirre's blatent ethical violations as mere "personality" issues. I know many people who left the office or were fired because they refused to go after Aguirre's political enemies using the power of the office - and then were afraid to go public for fear of what Aguirre would do to them. It is undisputed he offered criminal immunity to criminal defendents in exchange for their favorable testimony in his civil lawsuit. He was also reemed by the bench for is intentiol failure to comply with public records act requests of his office. These are not mere impulse or personality issues, but just a few of the unethical (and potentially criminal) acts of his while in office. If there is a smear campaign, can it really reach so far as the many judges that found Aguirre to be unethical or seriously lacking in legal judgement? Such far-reaching conspiracies are expected from Aguirre himself, but you seem far to rational to go there.— February 23, 2009 12:10 p.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Don, I share your desire for reform at City Hall, but I cannot agree with your assessment of how Aguirre was treated by the media and others. Those of us who saw Aguirre work from the inside wondered why the media was holding back, why was it pulling its punches? Aguirre abused his power and authority to go after his political enemies. Don't just ask the "Gwinn Holdovers", but those Aguirre brought in himself, like Rupert Linley. I really don't doubt Aguirre wanted to reform City Hall for the better, but that intent alone cannot make up for his own ethical violations. And as for Aguirre's efforts to control the pension liablity goes - Aguirre lost every court battle he initiated, and even incurred a $20,000 sanction at one point for shoddy legal work. Whomever may have "belittled" Aguirre on this effort had nothing to do with the lack of legal merit his case had. On balance, I'll give him credit for sincerely wanting to change business as usual at City Hall. But I haven't seen enough positive accomplishments to overcome his fatal ethical violations and abuse of power. He's personally a nice guy, and I don't wish him any personal ill will. But also don't know how he still has his bar card. And I don't understand how you seem to gloss over these profound flaws so easily. But I still respect you and your opinion, sincerely.— February 10, 2009 12:19 a.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
Response to post #43: I agree the people quoted have every right to their opinion, regardless of how wrong or misguided or unsubstantiated they may be. But the tone of the column seemed to give those particular opinions express approval and support as if they were fact. It simply read as rumor and inuendo passing for evidence and fact gathering. If all this is nothing more than the musings of a few disgruntled former employees, then so be it. But consider the countless ethical allegations about Aguirre that surfaced during his tenure in office, such as the judicially recognized bribing of people with criminal immunity in exchange for favorable testimony in his civil case against Sunroad. I did a search on this website and could not find any similar piece by you digging into this (or any other) questionable ethical conduct by Aguirre. I appreciate your rabble-rousing style, and have for some time. But when it seems so selectively applied in the City Attorney context, one simply has to ask why.— February 5, 2009 5:07 p.m.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith fires John Serrano after Brown Field dust-up
"Serrano doesn’t say it, but Goldsmith was telling him to follow the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law, for the mayor’s friends. As intelligent citizens know, Goldsmith is a toady for the mayor, who is in turn a toady for the downtown establishment, particularly real estate developers." If this remotely passes for journalism in The Reader, my worst fears have been realized. Rumor, inuendo, and unsubstantiated hearsay appear to be the primary sources for Bauder's hitpiece. Case in point: - "Serrano believes that a second matter he handled contributed to his firing." - "But I got word through an (un-named) intermediary that he wasn’t going to keep me around. I resigned.” - “ 'It was very directly acknowledged to us that a list did exist, and I was told by several (un-named) people that I was on it,' says Calabrese." And then there's Kim Urie's self-serving statement: “Those that were fired were the best public interest lawyers in the office.” Says who? and what makes these additionally un-named lawyers the "best" at anything? Let me guess. They were the best by defalt because over 125 out of 135 lawyers were fired, removed or left Aguirre's employment. Citing Aguirre chronies like Urie, Burton, and McGrath as martyrs would be laughable if it weren't so transparent. Declaring a "cavalier attitude toward ethical caution" in the Goldsmith administration might raise some legitimate eyebrows if Bauder had ever written a similar "expose" on Aguirre's ethical transgressions - such as offering criminal immunity for favorable testimony in Aguirre's civil lawsuit against Sunroad. As it stands, this just seems like a basket of sour grapes.— February 5, 2009 1:13 p.m.