Image of Councilman Cate praising SoccerCity development at GoalSD website. What more do you need to know?
City Councilman Chris Cate’s admission of his decision to pass along a confidential legal memo to a lobbyist working for the backers of the Soccer City development proposal has been at the center of controversy in recent days.
Cate and his PR guy say the decision to share was a necessary part of gathering information to make an informed decision. Except it would appear the Councilman had already taken a stance since his photograph appears alongside a supportive quote with other project backers at GoalSD.com. And lobbyist Craig Benedetto, who received the memo–stamped “confidential”–donated to and raised funds for Cate earlier this year.
The City Attorney says she believes a misdemeanor offense was committed and referred the case to the County District Attorney’s office. And there it will die, despite compelling evidence Cate violated San Diego Municipal Code section 27.3564(e).
Summer Stephan and her establishment friends, via SDASD Twitter
No judge or jury will ever hear the evidence or the Councilman’s defense. Such is the power of the County DA, a position currently held by appointee and heir apparent Summer Stephan.
Her ascension to the top prosecutor’s job was carefully orchestrated by Bonnie Dumanis, who stepped down to run for the District 4 County Supervisor seat held by term-limited Ron Roberts.
Appointee Stephan will have all the advantages of incumbency in running for County DA in June 2018. The usual suspects in San Diego’s downtown cabal have all lined up to support her, and one need look no further than how the protection likely to be afforded Councilman Cate should be considered Exhibit A to understand why.
San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott felt compelled to make her case as to why Cate’s actions were wrong in an op-ed at the Union-Tribune, following a bunch of “so what?” type of responses.
So what’s wrong with sharing the memo with a City Hall lobbyist if the intention was to have “the points clarified by all sides” because “the public has a right to know all points of view”?
First, it’s illegal. No single city employee can break the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the city. That can only be done by a vote of the City Council. It is also illegal for a council member to use city resources to help one side of an initiative campaign.
Second, nothing was clarified as a result of the leak, nor was the public made any the wiser. In the months since the memorandum was shared, there is no record that anyone other than the SoccerCity developers benefited from knowing “all of the points of view.”
Chris Cate’s (and Soccer City’s*) public relations consultant Tony Manolatos wrote an op-ed at Voice of San Diego suggesting that sharing the memo was a necessary part of the Councilman’s quest for understanding on the issue.
UPDATE: *Manolatos worked for backers of Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s plan to expand the San Diego Convention Center via a November 2017 special election. Had the City Council approved the idea (they didn’t), a measure concerning the proposed SoccerCity redevelopment of the Qualcomm Stadium property in Mission Valley would have also been on the ballot.
Manolatos use of the word “necessary” sets the stage for a possible defense argument, should this case ever end up in court.
It’s a jury of one on the SoccerCity question. Credit: Pixabay
Knowing this argument amounts to weak sauce since the Cate inquiry apparently began and ended with sharing the memo, the PR guy went on to do what all good debaters do when facing an incontrovertible argument: he attacked the person making the argument.
The city attorney has made it her mission to convict Cate in the media. She also is now on record as saying she longer trusts her client. This raises a whole host of potential problems for the city and city attorney’s office, including a potential conflict of interest the city attorney may now have in advising anyone on SoccerCity.
There is a related wrinkle that’s just as troubling as the political punches. For some reason, the city attorney’s office felt it was their right to announce that the district attorney’s office is investigating this matter. The city attorney’s spokesman, who is neither an attorney nor an investigator, released this confidential information in a written statement to the media following Cate’s press conference. Who shared this confidential information with the city attorney’s spokesman and why did he feel it was his secret to share? There is a reason agencies do not disclose the existence of investigations.
So now, if we are to follow Manolatos’ line of reasoning, there’s a political conspiracy against his client.
This isn’t the only conspiracy theory being bandied about town.
Union-Tribune columnist Michael Smolens raised questions about whether the leak of the memo, along with discussions preceding its disclosure, rose to the level of conspiracy.
Cate turned the analysis over to lobbyist Craig Benedetto, who in turn gave it to his client FS Investors, who have proposed the SoccerCity development and drafted a voter initiative to make it happen. It also made its way to FS’ attorney.
The memo wasn’t sent out of the blue. Cate and Benedetto discussed it beforehand, according to Cate’s newly hired public relations consultant, Tony Manolatos.
That could make things a little more interesting. The state Penal Code states it’s a criminal conspiracy “if two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime.” And then it lists a bunch of more specific things that constitute a crime as well.
Attorney Will Moore, I think, accurately predicts the ending to the Chris Cate controversy in a Voice of San Diego op-ed published this morning:
Siobhan Rohlwink-Coutts / Flickr
The “necessary” defense doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
But Cate’s defense isn’t really “it was necessary.” Cate’s defense is: I did it because I felt like it, and I’m going to get away with it.
This was an abject and brazen betrayal of the public trust. He certainly should resign. But he won’t. He should lose his election over this — but his seat is pretty safe, and he raised a ton of re-election money before anybody else found out about this. The decision about whether to charge Cate with a crime resides with a district attorney who is facing her first election next year, and may be reluctant to confront a very powerful Republican Council member and probable mayoral candidate.
Maybe Cate’s calculation is right. Maybe he will get away with it. But it won’t be innocence that protects him. It will simply be power.
***
Looking beyond the question of Councilman Chris Cate’s ‘cooperation’, there are remedies available to voters in the coming year.
This incident is just another in the “same old, same old” history of how business gets done in San Diego. The way to break the cycle is to stop electing the officials who enable this behavior.
Appointed County District Attorney Summer Stephan and Supervisor candidate Bonnie Dumanis are among these enablers. They are both on the ballot on June 5, 2018.
They both, by the way, share the same political consultant. And for purposes of the DA’s contest Stephan is totally running on the Dumanis legacy of politicizing the legal system to favor the entitled class.
The only other person running for District Attorney is public defender Genevieve Jones-Wright (who just happens to be of the progressive persuasion). Given this is a two-person contest, the winner under the County’s current election rules will be decided by the primary vote.
It should be easy to spot the enablers of the “same old, same old” by simply watching who funds the political action committees supporting Stephan and attacking Jones-Wright for being a defense attorney.
The race for County Supervisor is a bit more complicated. Dumanis is facing four Democrats and one other Republican (Yes, I know the race is technically non-partisan.) Given her name recognition, tenure in office, and backing by the status quo political complex, Dumanis will likely secure a spot on the November ballot. So the question is: who will oppose her in the general election?
The boys in the band at the Lincoln Club are already cranking out the “hits” they feel necessary to damage her opposition. The idea is to make so much noise over real and perceived differences that voters will look past the actual record of Bonnie Dumanis.
This sort of divide and conquer scheme worked for Kevin Faulconer in 2014. It worked for Donald Trump. And it’s working for Vladimir Putin.*
Credit: Love2dreamfish / Flickr
The Soccer City deal is just one of many in San Diego. Is it unreasonable to think the City’s homeless policies have something to do with manufacturing consent for a ballot proposition just happening to include Convention Center expansion? I don’t think so.
This next set of elections (both June and November) are critical junctures that will determine the future of our region for decades to come.
Writing about the issues and candidates as opposed to amplifying the political white noise being generated by the “same old, same old” machine is Priority Number One for me in the year ahead.
Stay tuned.
*For the record: No, I don’t think the Russians got Trump elected. They sought (and are still seeking) to sow fear and loathing. Their objectives are long term more than short term. And, yes, I’m aware of the irony of being upset over foreign interference in domestic politics.
Looking for some action? Check out the Weekly Progressive Calendar, published every Friday in this space, featuring Demonstrations, Rallies, Teach-ins, Meet Ups and other opportunities to get your activism on.
You can now get the Weekly Progressive Calendar delivered to your inbox every Friday. And it’s Free! Subscribe and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
Subscriptions to the Starting Line (Monday-Friday) are available:
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
I think Cate should go. He put his agenda above that of the citizens. He compromised the city’s negotiating power and leverage by leaking the legal memo. Yes, what he did was illegal – but it also was a huge business mistake. He gave the “other side” insider information.
He should be ousted for this offense.
Would San Diego elect Donald Trump to the office of District Attorney, or to its City Council? And who is the campaign consultant Bonnie Dumanis shares with her hand-picked successor whom we’ll probably vote into office. If it’s Jason Roe do these holier-than-thou Republicans know that their supreme Republican campaigner, Jason Roe, says he didn’t know his wife was making money continuously as a consultant to marijuana growers. If it weren’t for cynicism and misrepresentation there wouldn’t be a Republican party, and the Democrats would have to learn what to do from their constituents.
Thank you for more research into this issue, one of the most important San Diego citizens face.
Ever since I saw FS Investments 52 page fine/type insert in the UT last February, asserting that it was a Citizens Initiative, which it could not yet be because FS
yet had to circulate and buy the petition names to entitle it, I watched. And waited for SDSU to move correctly to legitimately pay the city, us, the citizens, for expansion land, to provide, yes, a football stadium, but, more important, a respected higher education for our kids. Don’t care about the kids? Go with the heartless developers and their flawed promises. Am guessing I preach to the choir here. Or maybe we all are about to sing…
a public school for our kids, our future.
I can’t help but believe that Stephan has a conflict of interest. It seems fairly straight forward. Any of you legal scholars out there want to take a run at this? It appears to be a pretty straight forward set of facts that indicates Stephan might be tempted to be less than fair to the citizenry while making this decision. Even the appearance of a conflict is enough to step aside or ask an independent authority for their opinion. Do the right thing counsel. Call the A.G.