By Jay Powell
Like a lot of people who strongly support the “neighborhoods first” policy commitment set forth by Mayor Bob Filner I have been on the revoltin’ remain-recall-resign roller coaster oscillating between disgust, disappointment, despair, dedication and determination regarding the daily drumbeat of “revelations” and political attacks on Bob Filner.
I am particularly wary of the recall option when I recollect two recalls that have affected San Diego within the last recent decades– a city councilmember in 1991 and, of course our Governor in 2003.
In each of these elections, the incumbent was voted out and the winner received less than a 50% plus one of the votes cast. Schwarzenegger (who incidentally was plagued by accusations of inappropriate behavior towards women in the final run up to election day) got almost 49%. Tom Behr won the Fifth District City Council seat with barely 25% of the votes cast. Done deal. No run off.
The main distinguishing and disturbing feature of a recall “election” is that the highest vote getter of the free-for-all alternative candidates listed after the yes or no on recall vote, wins it all.
And there is a wealth of misinformation running around out there regarding the recall process. Our U-T (=”Utterly Terrible”) news machine is doing its best to provide the worst. In an August 1 commentary, Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College, tells us that “San Diego law has other deficiencies such as an almost certainly unconstitutional provision that voters can only vote for a replacement candidate in a recall if they cast a ballot to oust the incumbent.”
Yet the City Clerk website clearly states: “No vote cast for a candidate shall be counted unless the voter also voted on the recall question.” That’s different than only the yes on recall folks getting to vote. Thanks again U-T.
Spivak goes on to speculate about the motivations for a 39 day circulation and then 30 day supplemental circulation period. There is talk about reforming the recall provisions to provide more time for circulation and to prevent potential bogus recall efforts from usurping the prerogative with intent to deliberately fail. The current dueling “recallers” have promised a joint news conference to announce a possible coordination – a kind of “gathering together to gather together.”
The fact is that recall is one of those remnants of the turn of a previous century citizen-led reform movement that included the right of voters to place items on the ballot by initiative petition. It is there to give direct recourse to voters outside of the legislative body. It has noble intentions.
But perhaps there should be some reflection on the rush to judgment aspect that the recall can enable. Irrespective of this situation, maybe it does need some reforming to allow for a two step process instead of a two in one, winner take all sweepstakes.
Another quirk in the recall rules: up until the actual recall election is held under the current rules if “a vacancy occurs in the position occupied by the official whose recall is sought, the election shall not be held.” The Mayor has the option to stay and fight right up to the recall election day. And then a whole different process begins. We have a process that allows for interim leadership. That will go into effect if the Mayor were to resign or if his office were to be “vacated” either by recall or resignation.
It’s important to separate the policy issues from the fitness and ability to lead character and viability issues. It may yet come to pass that the Mayor will decide that under the circumstances, he cannot lead the progressive, responsive and responsible government agenda he set forth and has been implementing to the consternation of those who have enjoyed exercise of unquestioned power for so long in San Diego.
While the Mayor’s peccadilloes and potential for prosecution on more serious allegations fuel national news outlet sensations and late night mirth-making, the local powers that be are busy piling on with their own version of the impacts of the Mayor’s considerable policy and political actions and accomplishments during his short tenure.
The squealing over the demise of our tourist industry is just one example of the hyperbole and hysteria that the U-T and the usual suspects are spewing as yet more reasons why Mayor Filner has to go as soon as possible.
Ironically, it is Cory Briggs and Donna Frye that tried to dissuade the City Council from the incredible give-away to the tourist industry that the Tourist Marketing District (TMD) represents. The Mayor has tried to extract some actual public benefits and safeguards from the TMD folks. The reason they aren’t getting the TMD funds that have been collected is because they won’t put their money where their mouth is to indemnify the City so we won’t have to use General Fund revenues to pay for all that exotic promotion if the TMD challenge succeeds in the courts.
Instead of telling them to shut up and put up, the U-T runs woe-is-San Diego stories that our economy is collapsing because they can’t pay the minions of staff and contractors who promote the tourism industry. The hotel rooms, the beaches, the restaurants, the tour boats and buses are emptying out at an exponential rate from a combination of no more TV ads in Cincinnati and Mayor Bob exploits running on the Daily Show.
Really?
Get a grip San Diego.
Instead of the three R’s already mentioned – Remain, Recall, Resign – let’s choose a different one for right now: Reflect.
Take a deep breath –not because Mayor Filner told us to do that last week in what is easily seen as a self-serving suggestion, but because we do need to be clear on what the options are and what the ramifications of each will be for us to have the best Mayor to carry out the best agenda for our neighborhoods, our environment and our economy.
Jay Powell
Latest posts by Jay Powell (see all)
- San Diego Commons at the Crossroads: The Sell-Off of ‘Excess’ Properties - May 18, 2017
- Hide and Seek on the Commons: Selling More San Diego - February 10, 2016
- Preserving the San Diego Commons: Public Land, Policy and Process - January 21, 2016
It’s true that the longer the Filner story is played, the more heated and extreme become the tactics of the city’s invisible managers up in the office suites. The ex-Mayor and Police Chief, Col. Sanders, has appeared speaking not for the Chamber of Commerce, which he manages now, but for some 33 unnamed businesses in something called the San Diego Business Alliance. ? Sanders is indignant; Filner must resign, says spokesman, Col Sanders.
Whatever else Filner has done, he’s brought national media to town, and they’ve amplified the howling of the local mainstream. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC did it first. Last night John Oliver on The Daily Show, followed with his own 10 minutes on Irene and Cindi and Sue, flashing Filner’s unfortunate mugshots interspersed with the inevitable genitalia jokes.
Over at Channel 8’s gated website, an unsourced story says Filner’s remodeling of Balboa Park’s Plaza de Panama has unnamed museum directors worried about falling revenues because people can’t park in the plaza. It brought out a cascade of TeaGOP trolls and termites calling the besieged mayor names and bemoaning their inability to drive SUVS onto the plaza.
The more this frenzy builds the better. Chaos might be better than the total control sought by the wheels of Big Pharma, Big Tech and, Big Tourism, and their spokes, Col Sanders, Todd the Inglorious, and countless others.
Bob.
I agree.
BREAKING…(IN)… This info, hot off the Facebook page of one TJ Zane, who just happens to be top dog at San Diego’s Lincoln Club:
FYI, for all of the political campaign armchair quarterbacks out there, here’s what’s so challenging about pursuing a recall in the City of San Diego: you can’t just hire signature gatherers from out of town to assist! The affidavit on the petitions includes this line, to which the circulator must sign and attest under penalty of law: “That I am a registered voter of The City of San Diego and that all of the signatures on each petition section were made in my presence and were observed by me, and that all of the sheets constituting this petition section were fastened together at the time such signatures were made; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such signatures are the genuine signatures of the persons who have signed the petition; and that the signatures were obtained between…” You heard it here first.
Doug:
That’s curious, because I know I read a quote from the fellows bringing the recall that they had decided to hire petition gathering companies for this endeavor of theirs. I suppose we shall see how that works.
Thanks for that item…news to me, never having signed a recall petition. Don’t approve of ’em myself. Prefer the regularly scheduled elections.
Thank you Jay Powell for trying to do your homework, and addressing the Truth rather than Sensationalism, something our U-T and KUSI and Channel 10 “journalists” are incapable of doing because their “reporting” is through a prism of editors and owners beholden to greed and anti-Fliner articles. I love your description of the U-T as “Utterly Terrible”. So true, but unfortunately it is the “utterly terrible” who still hold the cards in this city. Obviously, Mayor Filner has faults. But his faults pail in comparison to the money-grabbing ambitions of Jerry Sanders, Tony Young, Susan Golding, Sea World, the Spanos empire (remember the Chargers Ticket Guarantee?), the development of Liberty Station and PetCo Park, etc. that ripped off the taxpayers in order for a well-connected few to make billions at the expense of our San Diego citizens.
Joan:
I agree, although I think your computer changed ‘pale’ to ‘pail.’
The fact that can’t be ignored here is that Bob Filner is a serial harasser who in many ways is worse than NYC’s Weiner. While the Weiner debacle is basically consensual, the Filner headlock is not. He’s an abuser. So, with that in mind, is the UT a despicable bastion of blatantly right wing blather? Of course. Do the power elite in SD salivate at the prospects of emasculating Filner? Indeed. Is Jan Goldsmith gleefully rubbing his hands together while smoothing down his Seinfeldian hair piece. Yes. Do I like most of Bob Filner’s policies? Absolutely. BUT, he still has to go and the sooner the better! You simply can’t ignore Bob’s dark side and give him a pass because the “other” side is having a field day at his expense. Bob needs to resign.
Wrong, Mark. I can’t ignore your making an invidious comparison between Mayor Filner and NYC’s Carlos Danger as prelude to your otherwise enlightened views. So I wonder about your true motives….
Filner needs to reform the way he treats people and hang tough as Mayor. Supporters demand this personal transformation because we need Filner’s unique vision and energy to lead this city out of its morass. Under searing circumstances such as this attempted political assassination, an intelligent motivated person with serious personal shortcomings can change. Filner can change and he can prevail.
Surreptitious clowns cannot sustain their vendetta with daily presentations of damsel-damage for much longer without becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the local electorate — and that’s who counts. Tourism promotion destroyed? Really? La Jolla is awash with out-of-towners — all driving erratically. No SUVs on the Plaza de Panama? A change to be sure, but an unlikely death knell for the wonderful museums of Balboa Park.
Frances, there is no hidden subterfuge to my post – I simply cannot in good conscience ignore the multitude of credible women who have been harassed by Bob Filner. How would you feel if one of those middle aged women was your Mom or your sister? Just because Bob’s political/social/civic programs are something that we admire and support does not negate the fact that his personal behavior is unacceptable. Politics has nothing to do with it – someone who marginalizes and disrespects women does not deserve to remain in office, and I have serious doubts, as do the professionals, that two weeks of therapy is going to change anything.
Has no one in San Diego heard of the fundamental idea of due process? The idea is to protect the innocent from the consequences of being found guilty in biased venues. The concept is that it is better to allow some guilty people to go free rather than risk imprisoning an innocent person. History can point to innumerable numbers of people who were falsely imprisoned, often at the whim of the rulers. Not one of the women coming out in droves has even a slightly convincing case in terms of the law, other than the city employee who is suing Filner. I do not find her case particularly strong either. Many or all of these women have political reasons to want Filner out. IF Filner is guilty, then at that point throw the book at him and he deserves everything he gets. Right now I see a progressive mayor in a traditionally strongly conservative town who is being attacked for successfully carrying out progressive ideas. And BTW the council can vote all they want to not pay Filner’s legal fees. They tried that stunt in the “Enron by the Sea” scandal and ended up having to pay for those expenses plus all the other legal expenses run up by trying to get out of their responsibility.
Sorry Joan, but I’m gettin’ tired of many people misusing the idea of due process. That applies to court actions resulting in incarceration, not resigning an appointed or elected position. Filner *could* resign, be cleared in court, and then conceivably be re-elected!
I’m not advocating anything here, just sayin’ resigning is different from the legality of due process.
Good points, Joan, even though you seem to be speaking of the “idea” of due process, otherwise known as fair play, rather than the legal definition that Michael describes. I would like to see the chips fall where they may in a few weeks, rather than judging on insufficient facts and demanding that Filner resign. Why the devil should he? What good did it do our city to have Murphy resign? In my view, none. Waste of money and resources.
Mark, two weeks of rehabilitation involve the beginnings of change — a time-out for reflection on past destructive habits and their consequences, awareness that a different path exists and a resolve to live in a new way.
Intelligent people motivated by personal suffering who get help CAN and DO transform themselves. It happens all the time and covers a range of troubling human behaviors — shopping, gambling, drinking, drugs, pornography and promiscuous sex. It’s a process, not a quick-fix, and takes work.
Transformation doesn’t happen overnight or in two weeks, but over time, with personal commitment and continuing outside support.That’s what Mayor Filner has outlined and that’s what I expect will happen. His two-week initiation to rehabilitation occurs during the summer recess of City Council and, during this time, the Mayor will keep track twice-daily of City business. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Personally, I think politics has everything to do with it. I focus on the redemptive possibilities for a flawed man who is the elected liberal Mayor of our city rather than on the serial allegations by adult women of long-past unwanted sexual queries or contact. These people sound to me suspiciously like an organized chorus.
To answer your question, I cannot imagine my sainted Mother or daughters ever whining in public about the kinds of events that have been described: they would have dealt with the aggressor on the spot and confidently moved on. And they would have understood the notions of repentance, reform and redemption.
I forgot to include smoking and over-eating in the list of habitual human afflictions, and there are probably others. But they all carry negative consequences for the circle of associates, friends, lovers and family as well as the perpetrator.
Fran you are always fully and genuinely RIGHT ON!
Thanks Jay for the long-view and other points made.
Frances, there’s not much more to be said here. I think your willingness to look the other way when it comes to Bob’s sexual indiscretions carries the taint of political convenience. Even so, I respect your opinion. Bob will have due process both in the court and through the recall process, and the outcome will be known in the fullness of time.
Mark – neither Fran nor I are looking the other way on the allegations against Filner although we are looking askance to at least a few of them as “instances of sexual harassment”. She and I, and numerous others, men & women, agree that Filner must be held accountable for any of the accusations that can be documented and adjudicated.
But we also want to see Bob Filner remain in office and carry through on the many excellent proposals he has spoken of, some of which he already has accomplished.
I also don’t agree with those who claim Filner cannot continue to be an effective mayor while this stuff is going on. That’s wishful thinking. The City Council can continue to act just like the obstructionists in Congress who oppose *anything* Obama supports, or they can consider & base their votes on the merits of each proposal, not on who proposes.
In the meantime, there are actions that the Mayor can undertake without Council concurrence as is seen with the Plaza de Panama makeover, and others for which he can – has has recently – obtain at least a majority vote from councilmembers. In the meantime, City departments will continue with their responsibilities, directed as needed by the Mayor’s office.
Ahhh, it’s so nice here in Zihuatanejo.
Ernie, I’m smiling now, but may have to charge you with zoning out during a firefight, drinking in all that beautiful Mexican mañanismo. Actually when you come home– if you come home — you will find San Diego being its usual self, only more so.
I agree with Jay Powell that, as bad as our current Mayor is in his atrocious behavior toward women over the years, the Mayor we may get in a Recall Election may be much worse. Is there any doubt that the powers that be will unite behind one of the candidates who, in return for doing their bidding afterward, will receive the necessary funds and publicity to be the first past the post, which is all that it takes to win a
Recall Election under the present rules.
John: in my mind, there is no doubt at all about your prediction. I agree with you.
May be much worse? There is no question that the next mayor will be worse.
None whatsoever.
Jay, I hope there are enough people who will or can reflect, take a breath, take the long view. There is so much to gain with this mayor who will get treatment and who is more than just these particular accusations made just now hurriedly as are the threats being made by the obvious interested parties, Sanders as you said who is sitting on the board of 33 investors, and the two landsharks so accustomed to and dependent on continued contracting opportunities that have been for the most part theirs.
Also the tragedy that’s being put forth to the public who will not be paying for the pretty unmemorable tv ads as if we are cruel thieves depriving 15 or 20 people of high paying tourism–chamber of commerce jobs they’ve held. We have been paying for this advertising and the plan is to continue to do so for 40 years! I’m a homeowner here and I really hate the idea of being made to support that. Those ads for Canada, Utah and Minnesota lakes, etc. are pretty but you’re right, they are not so essential or even important if they merely bring a little more tourism after conventions and other visitors. I hope people can think about how little “evidence” really exists before sinking us and the city again so deeply into debt out of desperate greed that I am sure will not end up being paid for by Bob Filner. All he has really done that we know of is share with us his problem for which he will be treated. Such sharing by stars who are drunks or addicts is accepted, by stars who are flawed, adulterous and even those who steal for no reason. He has been “uncool” not flagrantly assaultive as portrayed and one has to be really gullible to not see what else is possibly that which could become slander or libel as presented. There is one case at court, with a possible eye witness for one incident. period.
Just a reminder: all of the parking spaces in front of the Museum of Art are only for deliveries and handicapped drivers and have been so for years. That does not prevent hundreds of cars daily who browse through the area just in CASE there is some random and unmarked free space. The now open space is remarkable in it’s simplicity, even with a bit of seats and tables it is fun, easy and so uncluttered with the all American/foreign car park – go see for yourself. You can still drive through without parking and get a look. Jay says it like it is, my words would include lynching, desperate power brokers with their chance to reclaim the city for another 40 years, and more. Get a grip, people, the city should belong to all of us and Bob deserves his chance for rehabilitation, day in court and what else? Let’s go forward with our eyes on the prize – equilibrium and a new moniker for our city.
Nice sentiments, Susan. We will check out the tables and chairs on Sunday. And yes, let’s give our mayor a chance. He has been called out on his problem, so let’s see how he does now.
Good information Jay. Confusing everyone with the facts. I am curious who the public relations firm is that is doing the backup work for the UT. Starting to sound like a familiar tune.
Replying to Jim Bliesner: Bingo on the PR firm! I was curious about who this guy Joshua Spivak was and followed the google trail for a little ways beyond his bona fides listed in his commentary as “senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College” (they also quoted him extensively in this Sundays U-t article on recall). Turns out that he is also a “Sr. Director” at Broadway listed New York firm, Ripp Media/Public Relations, Inc. headed by Allan Ripp. They describe themselves as “a boutique NY firm that specializes in legal PR. We are an editorial driven practice, often for premium national and international professional service firms in need of strategic, senior-level press counsel and execution. Client list includes leading names in corporate law… We offer superior writing and media skills with backgrounds in journalism, law, publishing and finance. We intentionally operate with a low agency profile preferring to assume the role of an in-house press office and communications function for our clients. …occasionally do project work in litigation PR and crisis communications.” Check ’em out. – JP
So here is the UT quoting a lawyer who also does side work for a PR firm that specializes in doing sub rosa PR for newspapers and other political entities. I wonder to what extent they are orchestrating the petulant newspaper stories of the UT. We know their writers do as their editions say and it’s not like Lynch is a press wizard so he must be getting advice and strategy from somewhere. Then just let the sister law firm be quoted to back up whet the editors/story writer says. Incestuous.
Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College, tells us that “San Diego law has other deficiencies such as an almost certainly unconstitutional provision that voters can only vote for a replacement candidate in a recall if they cast a ballot to oust the incumbent.”
Yet the City Clerk website clearly states: “No vote cast for a candidate shall be counted unless the voter also voted on the recall question.” That’s different than only the yes on recall folks getting to vote. Thanks again U-T.
———————————–
It all does make sense actually. The ballot allows choice of do you want him recalled or no. If no, then you don’t vote for a replacement. If yes, then you chose one you do want. Nothing unconstitutional about it.
“…. The ballot allows choice of do you want him recalled or no. If no, then you don’t vote for a replacement. If yes, then you chose one you do want. Nothing unconstitutional about it.”
Limiting the vote on a replacement mayor only to those who vote Yes on the recall denies anyone who voted No on the recall the right to vote on that separate ballot measure – or put another way, denies the right of voting to anyone who voted “the wrong way” on a separate measure on the ballot. I’ve not read the basis of the Ca. Supreme Court ruling but would not be surprised that this is the basis for finding the ordinance to be unconstitional.
Judy, your interpretation makes sense to me. If it worked as described, and a citizen wanted to make sure he or she had a say in who the mayor is, then one would be encouraged to vote Yes on the recall portion in order to be entitled to make the other vote.
replying to “michael-leonard”: my understanding of the court decision that the City Attorney and Council believe they need to fix is that it is unconstitutional to not let registered voters in the official jurisdiction vote on each matter separately. In essence they are two different issues on the same ballot: A. Do you want to recall the official? B. who do you want to vote for other than the current person holding that office from the list of those who have qualified as candidates. you can vote for A or B or A and B. You can vote yes or no on A and still get to vote on the B list. They apparently have corrected State law to comply, but San Diego is still out of compliance. Regardless of whether that makes sense to you, it is apparently the law. The real fun will come as to whether it is constitutional to change the city rules in the middle of an official’s term (ie, I ran for the office and got elected under this set of rules…) More to come. – JP
Quoting Jay Powell: ” The real fun will come as to whether it is constitutional to change the city rules in the middle of an official’s term (ie, I ran for the office and got elected under this set of rules…)”
I can’t imagine that a court would support a change in the middle of the term of an elected official so many want to get out of office, especially as it is those who want to get rid of that elected official also are the ones to vote on such a change. Thanks for carrying the logic another step forward, Jay.