The SDUT is right, in this case

I blame this on last night’s lunar eclipse and that the SDUT is suffering the same fate as other outlets in getting information from the Sanders Administration.

In today’s editorial section the SDUT takes on Jerry and his promises of transparency in the context of the California Public Records Act:


But it often appears that when requested documents are more likely to embarrass the mayor, the tougher it is to get them. Explanations of why certain information is withheld are inconsistent – sometimes draft e-mails are mysteriously held to be privileged communication, sometimes not. Reporters' messages requesting access to public records are sometimes simply ignored.

Now a new development makes us wonder if the deterioration of Sanders' long-stated commitment to transparent government is complete. The mayor's staff has accused Union-Tribune reporter Brooke Williams and data specialist Danielle Cervantes of using “physical and verbal intimidation” in attempts to get a city employee to provide public documents during a June 17 visit to City Hall. According to deputy press secretary Bill Harris, this “seemed to be an escalation of the intimidating tactics Danielle and Brooke attempt to employ with members of the mayor's communication staff.”

This is preposterous. Sanders, Pudgil and Harris would have the public believe that it amounts to “intimidation” for journalists to try to get the city of San Diego to live up to its legal obligation to operate in open, transparent fashion.

This editorial page has been mostly supportive of the mayor's policy initiatives and backed his 2008 re-election. But we are extremely disappointed by his decision to stonewall and bully the media. What's being done isn't just arrogant. In this state, it's unconstitutional.

Sacramento Today

Thank Karen Bass

From the CDP Chairman John Burton:


Yesterday, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass did something bold: She stood up to the governor and refused to participate in fruitless budget negotiations with him.

That’s because the governor has moved away from solving the real problem – closing the state’s multibillion-dollar deficit. Instead, he has stalled progress to pursue supposed “reforms” that may or may not actually save the state money.

Speaker Bass, however, knows that the pressing concern right now is closing the budget deficit so the state can stop sending out IOUs and start restoring its credit rating. The Speaker has made it clear that she will attend any and all negotiations that focus on solving the deficit immediately.

Please join me in thanking Speaker Bass for having the courage to say that budget negotiations should be about the budget.

Take a moment right now to email Speaker Bass at speaker.bass@assembly.ca.gov to thank her for standing up to the governor and continuing to fight for a balanced budget that preserves the state’s safety net.

Peace and friendship,
John

Lightner and Sewage

FACT: San Diego is a desert
FACT: San Diego is facing a water crisis
FACT; The City Council voted in March to approve a contract to examine recycled sewage as a possible source for drinking water.

And
FACT: According to the Voice, Councilwoman Sherri Lightner has asked the council to vote today to revoke a $438,000 contract it approved in March to examine recycled sewage as a possible source for drinking water.

Why?

We need water. We need to explore every possible avenue.

Experience in engineering, although cool, does not give one enough experience to counter numerous studies and enough real-world examples to make this “exploration” valid.

Her concerns aren’t bad but they should have been raised earlier.

And Faulconer is displaying his usual brilliance in supporting the contract not because of it’s purpose, which he opposes, but because it’s a contractual obligation.

Just another day in the land where “Happy Happens.”

Burton responds to the Governor

From the CDP:

In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Governor Schwarzenegger said he was "'perfectly fine' despite the fiscal debacle and personal heartsickness all around him. 'Someone else might walk out of here every day depressed, but I don't walk out of here depressed,' Schwarzenegger said. Whatever happens, 'I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,' he said. 'I'm going to lay back with a stogie.'" (Mark Leibovich, New York Times Magazine, 7/5/09)

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton had this response to the governor's comments:

"Sadly, the governor has once again displayed a shocking lack of sensitivity to the human suffering his budget will cause Californians.

"Proposing a budget that would deprive 900,000 children of health care and force 400,000 aged, blind and disabled into nursing homes is no joking matter. It's the shame of our state.

"The governor owes the people of California an apology. He also owes them a more humane budget crafted in conjunction with our Democratic leaders."

Transparency for Everyone Else

According to yesterday's SDUT, San Diego City Councilmembers have a slush fund similar to the County Supervisors. Called “infrastructure improvement funds,” these monies are leftovers in the budget from years past that they can spend as they wish.


Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said there ought to be more disclosure on how and why the reserves are being spent. She says she believes allocations from the reserve accounts should be part of council agendas.

“Certainly that would be important to do for the purposes of transparency and accountability,” she said.

Faulconer disagrees.

“I don't think the full council wants to spend time deciding how to spend minimal amounts of money on narrowly defined one-time expenses,” he said.

He opposes rolling back the reserve funds into the general fund.

“These leftover funds give us an opportunity to quickly address needs in the communities we represent – needs that otherwise would be ignored or stuck in a holding pattern,” he said.


A few points:
- The article begins with Carl DeMaio planning to donate $25,000 to help build the Rancho Bernardo history museum. For a guy who spends more time in District 3 than his own, a token monetary effort is better than nothing when it comes to representation.

- The 40 watt bulb that is Faulconer defends the status quo by calling these funds, which are lifelines for some, minimal which might be true were they dolled out in the hundreds and not the thousands.

- It’s not everyday that the SDCTA comes off better than Frye on the issue of transparency, especially since she has the most cash at her disposal. Then again, what better way to promote her COS as a candidate than by cleaning up her district seeing how he’s going to run on her record. I’m not against making the city livable, but I wish the counclmembers would do so in a manner that wasn’t so blatantly political.

- Ditto for Ben. The 8th could use Ben’s allocation, Frye’s and then some. Felipe has his work cut out for him and any improvements his brother could make would be positive in one of the most abused district in the city.

Statement of Kevin Keenan, Executive Director, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Regarding Sheriff’s Department Handling of Cardiff House Party fo

Statement of Kevin Keenan, Executive Director, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Regarding Sheriff’s Department Handling of Cardiff House Party for Congressional Candidate Francine Busby

On Friday, June 26, 2009, according to press reports and witness statements, a San Diego County Sheriff’s deputy, responding to a noise complaint, entered the home of Shari Barman who was hosting a political gathering to support Francine Busby, a candidate for Congress. When the homeowner questioned why she had to provide her date of birth, the deputy grabbed her arm, put it behind her back, and brought her to the ground. Feeling intimidated by a group of mostly middle-aged women, he pepper-sprayed a number of guests and arrested Barman.

The ACLU has received a number of inquiries about whether the civil liberties or rights of the event hosts and guests were violated. Because the Sheriff’s Department will not release 911 recordings or other documentation about the incident, it is hard for us to determine all the facts. The ACLU calls on the San Diego Sheriff’s Department for more public disclosure and transparency in what appears to be a significant abuse of power by a peace officer who intruded into a person’s home and reacted with unwarranted force to an unsubstantiated complaint alleging a minor infraction. With the limited information that we do have, the incident raises a number of troubling questions.

1) What right did the Sheriff’s deputy have to enter the property in a non-emergency situation in the first place?

2) What right did Deputy Abbott have to demand the date of birth of the host?

3) How did peace officers allow this situation to get out of hand to such a dramatic extent, and why did the deputy not use his training to deescalate the situation instead?

Based on what is now known, the Sheriff’s deputy may have illegally entered a private home, disrupted lawful political activity, demanded personal information that was not required, and used physical force that was unnecessary, and thereby caused an escalating confrontation.

Fourth Amendment Protections

Above all else, the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the home. As a general rule, a peace officer may not enter the home without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. Someone other than the owner can legally consent to entry of the home only if the officer reasonably believes that person has authority to give consent. Such consent may be revoked by the owner.

In this incident, press reports and witness statements suggest that at about 9:30 p.m., Deputy Abbott and a Psychiatric Emergency Response Team clinician entered the home through the open front door, asking where the homeowner was. None of the reports suggest that the homeowner or even a party guest invited the officer inside, and, in any case, it is doubtful at best that an officer could reasonably believe a party guest has authority to consent to entry of the home. Proper constitutional procedure would have been for the deputy to ask for the homeowner to be called to the door to be informed that a neighbor had made a noise complaint.

From the information currently available, it seems the deputy did not observe excessive noise himself but was acting on the unsubstantiated complaint. Most witnesses described the event as a typical political house party, without amplified music or entertainment. Busby stated that she delivered a talk via microphone between approximately 8:00 and 8:30 p.m. during which she was interrupted several times by a neighbor shouting in opposition. Other nearby neighbors report hearing nothing at all until the eight back-up patrol cars and a helicopter arrived on the scene. In these circumstances, it is possible that the deputy violated the owner’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering her home without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.

Providing Legally Required Information

It is not a crime to refuse to provide information that officers have no legal right to require, nor is it a crime to question an officer’s right to seek such information. In this incident, according to a Sheriff’s spokesman, Deputy Abbott approached the homeowner and asked for her date of birth so he could file paperwork alerting the city to the noise complaint. According to most reports, the homeowner asked why the deputy needed her date of birth and started to walk away, and he restrained her.

A person is only obligated to provide information if it is legally required. It seems clear that at most, a minor noise infraction was taking place. It is not clear that the deputy had the authority to demand the homeowner’s identifying information, but, if he did, certainly the person’s name and home address should suffice. That the Sheriff’s deputy used physical force against a 60 year old woman when she questioned whether providing her birth date was necessary is of grave concern. Even if she unlawfully refused to provide the birth date or acted disrespectfully, common sense and good judgment would dictate an alternative to the use of force.

Breaking the Peace Instead of Keeping the Peace

It is almost unfathomable how this incident was allowed to escalate to this degree. The fact that this incident escalated so quickly, and involved physical force, repeated use of pepper spray affecting numerous attendees, several older guests reportedly knocked to the ground, at least eight law enforcement officers, including a sergeant, a helicopter, an ambulance, two people being booked at Vista Detention Facility and perhaps several others arrested or detained for “talking back to an officer” or taking photos with their cell phones but later released at the scene—all because of a vague noise complaint—speaks to a serious lack of law enforcement restraint.

Police officers and sheriff’s deputies receive training in public order policing or crowd control. Even if the events unfolded exactly as described by the Sheriff Department’s spokesperson, there appears to be no justification for the melee that the deputy’s actions created.

Subsequent Remarks of Sheriff’s Department Officials

Since the incident occurred, there have been troubling indicators that some Sheriff’s Department officials do not appreciate their responsibility in such police-civilian interactions or the important Fourth and First Amendment interests at stake. Most notably, Sgt. Thomas Yancey told the Union-Tribune, “If Francine Busby was there, why not take a leadership role, step up, and nip this thing in the bud?” Sgt. Yancey’s statement reflects an arrogance and dismissiveness unbefitting a law enforcement officer. It is the responsibility of law enforcement officers to handle such situations with professionalism and respect for the rights of the public.

The ACLU calls for a full and independent investigation and appropriate action taken. The investigation should determine whether the deputy acted within his authority to enter Barman’s home, whether he had the right to demand information that was not legally required, whether he used unnecessary force in restraining her, and whether he and subsequent responding officers overreacted and unnecessarily escalated the situation.

Brown to (in a few months) Officially Announce Candidacy for Governor

Brown’s candidacy has been about not if he would run for Governor, but when he would make it official. According to Fog Street Journal:


“Now that Antonio Villaraigosa’s out of the race for governor, are you getting any closer to officially declaring your candidacy?” Fog City Journal asked Brown on the occasion of the annual Alice B. Toklas Pride Breakfast held Sunday at the Palace Hotel.

“I have to wait a few months,” Brown responded but didn’t stick around long enough for any follow-up questions.


If what has been happening here in San Diego is any indication, he needs to prove he can raise money. He and Newsom have had fundraisers here and this competition for dollars in economically depressed times will be indicative of their levels of support.

Traditionally, Brown has been able to thrive in attracting volunteers but suffered in the fundraising area. If he is to create a winning campaign, he must use these months to reach parity, if not surpass, Newsom whose issues with identity can be overcome with a sizable treasury.

Press Release: Assembly Committee passes Kehoe's Seals bill

The question remains if this bill supersedes the ruling of the court.



Tue at 10:50am
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2009


SAN DIEGO – Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) announced today that her legislation giving the City of San Diego final say about seals at the La Jolla Children’s Pool passed an Assembly committee.

“Passage of this bill will give the City of San Diego the discretion to decide which allowable use of the Children’s Pool to adopt, thus returning local control to the city on what has become a very controversial issue,” said Kehoe. “It is my hope the Assembly will promptly pass the bill and forward it to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature.”

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee passed SB 428 by a vote of 8-0 on June 22 and it will next be voted on by the full Assembly.

The legislation would amend the Children’s Pool trust so that it may be used as a marine sanctuary. Ultimately, the San Diego City Council would decide whether to allow seals on the Children’s Pool beach. To view the text of the bill, visit www.senate.ca.gov/kehoe and click on “legislation.”

# # #