L.A. Times and U-T stars take bow

Losing a high-quality reporter like Tony Perry is a blow to San Diego. He is a member of that shrinking list of local journalists who understand the importance of accuracy and context in reporting stories. He'll be missed -- but hopefully now he'll have some free time to help mentor the emerging crop of reporters who have the thirst but can benefit from the discipline to craft meaningful and accurate stories.
— November 25, 2015 9:05 a.m.

Former UCAN founder wins lawsuit

No, Don. The reason the FBI did nothing is because there was nothing to the story. Every single one of your allegations has been debunked. No exceptions. Yet, you are incapable of admitting that in your zeal to ferret out a scandal, you got bamboozled. The jury verdict (11-1) was decisive and based on documented facts.....not the empty allegations that you printed. There was no wrongdoing and I won every cause of action. I have no expectation that you'll be gracious enough to admit that you were wrong, but there's no need for you to continue to beat a drum that is bereft of skins. And, further, you know that the reason the judge dismissed my defamation allegations against Aguirre was the "absolute immunity" enjoyed by attorneys who can say whatever they want with no concern for accuracy so long as it is directly or indirectly related to a lawsuit they did or may file. Don't pretend it was for any reason than that one.
— August 28, 2015 2:23 p.m.

UCAN to Undergo Court-Supervised Reorganization

Don, I can assure you that answers to each of the questions you posed will be forthcoming. In fact, our website statement even says: "UCAN will be sending a letter to its donors in the coming weeks to describe, in greater detail, the objectives of the Board and the process underway". Unfortunately, these answers will be coming based upon our timeline, not yours. And I offer the following with respect and personal fondness; as your own readers have noticed, your point of view on this matter is so one-sided and contorted that you no longer serve as a vehicle for objective reportage. So when I am freed up to sit down with the media and talk about these events, it won't be with you.
— February 29, 2012 11:06 a.m.

UCAN to Undergo Court-Supervised Reorganization

To those who are interested in this matter, I recommend strongly that you not believe everything (or even much of) that you read about this topic.....perhaps not even these words. But here's what I can say with a fair amount of confidence: UCAN is going to continue to fulfill its mission. I'm not going anywhere. SDG&E has no basis to be celebratory. And the other side of the stories that Don has been publishing will be coming out over the coming year. It will reveal a story that is dramatically different than the saucy novella he has scribed.
— February 29, 2012 9:21 a.m.

Who Watches the UCAN Watchdog?

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE --- Due to space limits, I have had to divide my response into two comments..... For all of Don's bluster about whether I was misleading the CPUC by "masquerading" as a licensed attorney (which I wasn't) he hasn't identified who was harmed? Clearly, the CPUC wasn't misled. How about the public? Did he find someone who said "I'd never have given money to UCAN if I knew that Mr. Shames had become an inactive member of the State Bar." And would that same public member have disagreed that when I went inactive it was as a protest against the rampant mismanagement of that very controversial regulatory entity back in the 80s? Not likely. In fact, at the time I did it, I was lauded for "walking the walk" and sending an important message to the State Bar. The reality is that Don wants to try to paint UCAN as a mismanaged, out-of-control non-profit. He alludes to there being only four Board members, yet doesn't mention that there were eight members up until March of this year, when a UCAN employee threatened to personally sue the volunteer UCAN Board members. Four of them chose not to expose themselves to that kind of litigation exposure and I don't blame them. For what Board members get paid (nothing), who needs that aggravation and legal exposure? I'm hugely impressed with the Board members who stayed and chose to fight purely on principle. Nor does Don point out WHO is making these accusations about UCAN and what are their motivations. Would it matter if they were employees who had been terminated from their jobs because of non-performance? He mentions that the Dostart report didn't address a number of other management controversies -- none of which are documented or supported. Nor did he look into the cause of "complete disorganization" to which he alludes in his closing paragraph. For one, it is totally untrue. And second, any internal discord stems from my announcement to staff and others back in 2010 that I was no longer going to serve as Executive Director of UCAN after the end of the 2011 SDG&E General Rate Case. An internal staff battle for control of the organization and its significant assets ensued. Of course, Don didn't bother mentioning any of that. And all because he needed to get his story out under his timeline and his convenience. So welcome, San Diego Reader customers, to convenient journalism where we get whatever facts are conveniently available and that can be made to sound salacious and scandalous, even if no such scandal exists. Apparently, the problem isn't isolated to Rupert Murdoch-owned news outlets. Then again, did his News Corporation buy the San Diego Reader when we weren't looking? Perhaps Don could investigate that as well. Michael Shames
— July 29, 2011 6:30 a.m.

Who Watches the UCAN Watchdog?

Don's "article" is a disturbing demonstration of the decline of investigative journalism. It is riddled with factual inaccuracies and, most importantly, only one side of the story. Here's the inside scoop: I offered to sit down with and spend "as long as he needed" today (Friday) discussing every and all aspects of UCAN with him. "No holds barred", I offered. Don rejected my offer and insisted he needed to meet last week because of his self-imposed deadline to get the story out yesterday. When I explained to him that I was in the midst of week-long hearings in San Francisco, in which I'm trying to get the regulators to deny SDG&E a $39 million increase he seemed to feel that his story was more important than those hearings. If he had sat down with me today, as I had offered, he would have learned a couple of essential facts that never made it into his story. He spends an awful lot of time talking about the Dostart report. Turns out, the version of the Dostart report that he had in his possession was an early draft whose facts had not been verified and, in fact, are wrong. It was wrong about my salary and bonuses. It was wrong in that it left out the fact that ALL the attorneys at UCAN get the same 10% bonus and have been working under that arrangement for over 15 years. And it had been approved by the UCAN Board numerous times. He seized on a year in which I received $202,000 in salary and bonus. That was the year in which I received a 10% bonus on a case that dragged on for three years and in which UCAN received over $1,000,000 in reimbursed costs and fees. In that same case, UCAN was cited by regulators as having presented essential evidence that got the Sunrise Powerlink moved out of Anza-Borrego State Park and in which we were credited for having submitted a redesign of SDG&E's transmission operations that results in 10s of millions of dollars in operational savings. Did Don check to see the compensation for other non-profit attorneys with 25-years experience who also served as the executive directors of those organization? Of course not. There are actually a number of other "facts" in Don's piece which are either wrong or inflated. But had Don really been so interested in getting the facts right, he might have tried to find out why I had chosen to be an inactive member of the Bar. (check out http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-22/news/mn-40…) Or what steps I took to make sure that I didn't fall afoul of State Bar rules. For example, did I seek compensation rates at the level that licensed attorneys charge? It is all in public records, but Don didn't bother checking that out. Or, if he did, he declined to mention it in his story. Michael Shames
— July 29, 2011 6:28 a.m.

Sempra spins Sunrise Powerlink in the Union-Tribune

Not so surprising, actually. It was the CPUC staff that drove this action. I know that the CPUC staff has been very irritated by SDG&E’s pattern of dissembling during this case – even the Judge lost it a few times because of his impatience with SDG&E’s misrepresentations – and I think the PUC action is more a result of this pattern of deception that finally reached a boiling point. In May, SDG&E and PUC staff finally agreed to a southern route that avoided all tribal land. However, weeks later, in its ex parte meetings with Commissioners, SDG&E chose to conceal from the Commissioners the agreement that it had reached with CPUC staff about being able to route the line away from the tribal lands. This was probably the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back and compelled the CPUC staff to push for some sanctions. It was a long time coming, given the remarkable record of dissembling that in which SDG&E been engaging throughout this case.
— August 2, 2008 2:31 p.m.

Sunrise Powerlink — a chess game for the big guys

Here's the latest scoop on SDG&E's profits from this project: if the project is approved by the Public Utilities Commission, SDG&E stands to reap $1.3203 billion. Because of the nature of FERC ratemaking, that $1.32 billion is strongly front-loaded. More than half of the $1.32 billion profit to SDG&E shareholders occurs in the first 8½ years of the project’s 58 year life, from mid-2011 through the end of 2019. So you do the math.........does SDG&E walk away from the largest, most lucrative project that it is has ever built? Not a chance. Check out the UCAN web page (www.ucan.org) on May 30th and you'll see how this project is a huge money-loser, isn't needed to keep the lights on and only about 25% of the line's capacity will be used to bring renewable power into San Diego.....all based upon SDG&E's own numbers!)
— May 28, 2008 8:36 p.m.

SDG&E to install 2-way meter readers

Thanks Don, for your comments above. Just so everyone knows, UCAN didn't take a dime from the settlement with the City water dept. In fact, our policy is not to take any money from any civil case we bring -- that way we avoid any appearance of conflict. And you are correct that it was exceedingly difficult to push the City to reimburse the entire amount taken by the large customers (with the City's help) when it teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. But based upon what we learned about the City's management of its water and sewer infrastructure, UCAN will be taking on greater oversight of this department in the coming months. - Michael Shames
— April 9, 2008 10:27 a.m.