A recall election would cost the city an estimated $3 million to $6 million.The most glaring examples, the Sunroad and Centrepoint quid-pro-quo Filner gamesmanship no doubt have other developers concerned about the fate of their projects, thus shying away from doing business during the continuing debacle. Staying in office until next year would mean continued dysfunction at City Hall.No reasonable person believes one week (or two weeks, or two days) in therapy curbed the “monster inside him.” Filner remaining in office that long would mean potentially increased liability for taxpayers if he continued his behavior, or even if any employee perceived his behavior in the wrong light.
Yet, a recall - virtually assured once on the ballot - would still allow Filner to stay in office until January at the very earliest and more likely until March of next year. As difficult as that recall process may be, I believe the campaign would have succeeded in collecting the required signatures.
Although the signature gathering started a week ago with frenzy, those who are highly motivated to sign a petition will do so at the start, then things slow down as more signers have to be sought out. Collecting more than 101,000 valid signatures in 39 days is an immensely difficult task, it almost goes without saying. The only other real viable option for removal - short of waiting for the outcome of the criminal investigations - is a recall, not a guaranteed option.First and foremost, the agreement removes Filner from office immediately.There may be no choice in paying such future unknown costs.Īn analysis of the positives of the deal against the alternative: While Goldsmith and the city council would probably fight to keep from paying any related costs, it is entirely possible a mediation process would result in payment, or a court would force such payment for a defense, just as in a 2007 case involving former Mayor Dick Murphy and Councilmembers Michael Zucchet and Ralph Inzunza. If any other harassment lawsuits are filed against Filner, it is likely such complaints will also name the City of San Diego. Despite the salaciousness of the sexual harassment allegations, such complaints may be limited to civil penalties, while the federal investigation of “pay-to-play” schemes involving two local developers always had the potential of criminal sanctions.Ī jointly provided defense is common in these cases. The other potential law enforcement prosecution the deal does not prevent is that of the U.S.(As a related aside, yesterday Voice of San Diego reported the mayor is now facing a criminal investigation by State Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office in conjunction with the ongoing Sheriff’s probe.) It does not preclude any law enforcement agency from prosecuting Filner on criminal charges.The agreement does not cover any of Filner’s legal expenses other than in the case of employee related complaints involving his conduct as mayor, nor will it cover any criminal legal expenses.It’s important to note what the deal does not do: In essence, the deal means Filner agreed to resign next Friday, in exchange for the city providing a joint defense for any employee related complaints involving the mayor’s conduct in that capacity, with the city further providing up to $98,000 to cover his independently incurred legal expenses for any such complaints. With that said, the deal brokered by retired Judge Lawrence Irving - with significant crafting, negotiating and ushering by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Council President Todd Gloria and Councilmember Kevin Faulconer - appears to be a very credible settlement for the city, while removing Filner from office nearly immediately. A government agency is partly liable for its employees, including its elected officials, even when they are loose cannons and have loose fingers. The day Gloria Allred and Irene McCormack Jackson held their press conference it was fairly clear the city would be on the hook for something, maybe a significant amount. Yet, for anyone to believe there would be no cost to the city from Filnergate … well, that’s simply not realistic. If it were up to a lot of people, the guy would be left penniless or behind bars. It really chaps the common hide to think the city would enter into any settlement whatsoever with the soon-to-be former but already disgraced mayor.
Maybe we can start by agreeing on something. Is Friday’s City of San Diego agreement with Bob Filner a good deal for taxpayers?
0 kommentar(er)
