The cynicism that many San Diegans have about how their city government is run is difficult to exaggerate. Many residents assume that there are nefarious reasons — not just incompetence — behind the city’s staggering list of screw-ups since the mid-1990s.
Many people of all political views assume the city’s 2016 agreement to enter into a 20-year, $127 million lease-to-own deal for a decrepit 19-story office building at 101 Ash Street was the result of bribery or other chicanery. Niche groups think there is something deeply unsavory about how tight City Hall is with public employee unions — or San Diego Gas & Electric — or Downtown business interests — or all three simultaneously.
But now city leaders have a chance to repair — or start to repair — their tattered image: by listening to City Attorney Mara Elliott and putting a measure before voters in November to amend the City Charter to give the Ethics Commission much more autonomy and authority in its oversight of public officials.
The weakness of the the present set-up is made obvious by the fact that as the City Charter is now written, the City Council can vote to kill the commission at any time. “Under the current system, the of the city Ethics Commission are essentially selected by (hired and fired) the very mayor and city council the commission is supposed to oversee,” noted Carl Luna, the director of the Institute for Civil Civic Engagement at the University of San Diego as well as a Mesa College political science professor. “Thus the Ethics Commission effectively is neither independent or apolitical.” Elliott’s proposal would change this unhealthy norm.
It would also give the commission a dedicated funding stream and allow it to hire its own attorneys instead of depending on the City Attorney’s Office
Elliott also hopes to increase the fines the commission can impose — going from the present $5,000 maximum to $15,000 — to make lobbyists take city rules more seriously. She also wants to require unpaid as well as paid lobbyists to report their s with public officials and to strengthen protections for whistle-blowers.
Unfortunately, it’s not clear whether her proposal will reach voters. In November, two of the five of the council’s rules committee — Kent Lee and Vivian Moreno — opposed a motion to have the city attorney work with the Ethics Commission on language for the measure. On Wednesday, the proposal comes back before the committee. If Lee and Moreno — or any other member — are opposed, they need to explain why in compelling fashion. If they don’t, well, that will just provide one more reason for San Diegans to be cynical about City Hall.
