Acle's Tough Fine and Other Bits

Published: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:08 PM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

Couple of things:

A friend had reminded me early last week not to forget about the hearing/trial set for school board member Luis Acle in front of the city of San Diego's Ethics Commission.

I've been watching Acle's case, obviously, for quite some time. We did this profile of his interesting history with people on the record discussing how he never paid them back for the work they did on his horribly managed run for City Council.

It was pretty clear then he was going to face some awful music from the Ethics Commission. But he had the chance to cooperate with their investigation and maybe work something out like so many other politicos in town.

Instead, he fought. And just as he had when facing the IRS, he struggled to put together a coherent argument as to why he hadn't done what they accused him of. And the scope of how much trouble he could be in became clearer. The magnitude of the fine he was facing from the Ethics Commission was extraordinary.

Still, he fought. He took the Ethics Commission to its first ever full administrative hearing -- a trial-like setting that pitted Acle against Stacey Fulhorst, the executive director of the commission. The jury was the commission.

I was looking forward to the hearing. However, I basically forgot about it.

The U - "We Were With Him Before We Were Against Him" - T didn't forget about the hearing and had this report Saturday. Acle must have argued worse than he did when he faced the IRS -- his fine, the paper reported, came to more than $75,000.

Again, we knew the fine, if he were found to have violated all he did, was going to be high. We knew it could be ugly. But to have it come out that high officially was still impactful.

There may be an urge among some to wonder if this wasn't excessive punishment for violations of complex formulas and reporting requirement "technicalities."

Nope. Read the full complaint against him. He was found to have not only failed to pay contracted workers on his campaign, the commission found him to have hidden expenses and collected donations in cash. These are direct efforts to hide information from voters. Even people who argue the city should have no limit on campaign contributions at all at least hold that full disclosure of contributions and expenses must be maintained if not strengthened.

Like others who have faced the Ethics Commission staff, he could have cooperated and settled for perhaps a much smaller amount. But he chose to fight.

Unfortunately for him, he armed himself with very little evidence.

I'm going to try to withhold opinion about this move until I have a chance to talk to Amy Lepine. But how she can settle her sexual harassment suit against City Attorney Mike Aguirre and then immediately endorse him for the job is just beyond me.

I mean, either her complaint against Aguirre was complete crap or she sees some kind of personal benefit in this move that outweighs the damage to her credibility that such a dramatic disavowal of her own previous statements can cause.

I mean, this was Lepine a couple of months ago:

Now she thinks he's the best man for the job.

Finally, I'm sure you'll see a lot more fallout from the big story last week. But I wanted to make a quick note: You know things are bad when Jim Madaffer can lecture you like that.

Madaffer wants to completely dissolve the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., SEDC. Madaffer's colleague, City Councilman Kevin Faulconer promises audits. The mayor is all over it. City Councilwoman Donna Frye and Councilman Ben Hueso have spoken out about it.

I have only one question: Where is Tony Young? SEDC's influence is contained mostly in Young's district. Does he really want Madaffer and the mayor (never mind his rivals for the position of City Council president) to set the terms of the discussion going forward?

I guess so.

Update at 2:06 p.m.: Young just talked to Will Carless. You can read his comments here. The gist? Young wants to see a completed audit of SEDC and see the agency's responses to a number of questions, many of which are similar to the mayor's questions put the the agency.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

15 Comments so far on this story...

I am a supporter of Mike Aguirre. I don't support the actions that caused Ms. Lepine to be miserable in her job, but, like Lepine, I'm able to look beyond Aguirre's obvious faults and see that he is the only candidate who is interested in open government and in serving the people instead of the powerful. Lepine always said she agreed with Aguirre's agenda. It makes sense that she supports him now that he is the only candidate with a philosophy similar to her own. Lepine's lawsuit sent the message that women demand more respect than they once did; I suspect that Aguirre learned something from it. Now the taxpayers don't have to pay for a trial: it seems like a good outcome to me.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 2:28 pm

look out herb cawthorne, the irs will be coming after you next! unlikely you'll have the same glib comments to make to them about how "happy you were when the checks came around".

Posted by the truth | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 3:17 pm

You "suspect" Aguirre learned something from Lepine's accusations? What causes you to suspect that? His continuing to deny there was any validity, whatsoever, to Lepine's allegations? His trumpeting the fact that the settlement acknowledges no wrong doing on his part? You are being purposefully obtuse. Agreeing with one's supposed philosophy would not justify supporting a someone who ran an office the way Lepine said Aguirre runs his, or someone who treats female employees the way Lepine said Aguirre treats his. Not even close, and but for people like you and Lepine believing that party transcends everything else Aguirre and others wouldn't know they could get away with it. Shame on you and Lepine.

Posted by Really, Maura? Really? | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 4:09 pm

In my opinion, Jan Goldsmith is Dick Murphy the Sequel. Like Murphy, Goldsmith has teamed up with Ann Smith and Judie Italiano in an effort to go back to the old business as usual. If I have to choose between someone who wants the good ol' boys and girls to once again make decisions behind closed doors for the benefit of themselves, and, on the other hand, a man who offends people at times but works for openness in government and the public good, I choose the latter. And yes, I do believe that Aguirre will be more careful in the future about showing respect to women. Also, I was for Aguirre before the "party" endorsed him. Rather than feeling "shame," I feel that you should be more respectful of my opinion. Really.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 6:55 pm

I am trying to put myself in a situation where I would accuse someone of sexual harassment and then turn around and endorse that person. It makes no sense no matter how you slice it. I can't imagine an endorsement from Lepine amounts to much, but it is rather pathetic on her part. Sure Aguirre can learn but she no longer works for him. How would she know if he did? Pathetic pathetic pathetic.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 7:04 pm

Oh gosh, just a week ago Scott Lewis called land-rich Ben Hueso a shoo-in for City Council President, based on some reading of celestial signs that I never could figure out. Now he's noticed that Tony Young has been AWOL from the conversation about scandals at the Southeast Development Corporation which is entirely in Young's district. Next Scott will be noticing that Donna Frye is a progressive who doesn't own a lot of private property in her Council district nor does she fail to overlook the management of a redevelopment agency in her own backyard. Could Donna Frye be the default candidate for City Council President, what with Hueso's conflicts of interest and Tony Young's two blind eyes? As for Aguirre and Lepine, let's just say Amy's lawsuit didn't hold water and let it go at that. It's politics. They're moving on and so should we.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 8:18 pm

I forgot to mention Luis Acle, former School Board President. His conduct in office is just incredible -- unless of course, you know him. Then you understand.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 14, 2008 8:31 pm

This is so transparent that Lepine is getting, or thinks she will get, something big in return. Her allegations against Aguirre are so accurate that they are common knowledge among all those who've had any real contact with the man (off camera). Lepine did not simply drop the lawsuit, she settled it. But for what? Ann is absolutely correct - absent some substantial, behind-the-scenes shenanigans, this "deal" makes no sense. Scott, you've GOT to figure this one out for us.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 15, 2008 8:16 am

Is any one tired of this crap... the crap being mis-management of public agencies and stupid maneauvers by politicians, and would-be politicians? I am. Oh well. You get what you pay for.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
July 15, 2008 11:01 am

Rock On -- Amy Lepine's "suit" against her boss and subsequent "settlement" make perfect "sense:" The whole thing was trumped up, went nowhere and needed to be dropped. Thank heaven that it came to an end, albeit one that was too tame for you. Lepine's "allegations against Aguirre" were malicious and dead wrong. The "common knowledge" about him is absolutely contrary to what was viciously alleged. If Aguirre were not a public figure, he would not have to tolerate such calumny and could respond with his own lawsuit seeking damages. Too bad you are disappointed.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 15, 2008 6:28 pm

Fed Up, I would be inclined to agree with you that Lepine's case was trumped up from the beginning if Aguirre's record for the alleged behavior towards many others were not so well established. I know too many accounts of other women who've experienced worse than what Lepine alleged at the hands of Aguirre to think Lepine's suit was based on nothing of substance. Heck, I've witnessed much of the same behavior myself! I can't ignore what I know to be true about Aguirre. In this case, Lepine is getting SOMETHING for settling the lawsuit for "nothing". It really is that transparent, and we'll find out what it is.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 17, 2008 10:12 am

Rock On wrote: “Heck, I've witnessed much of the same behavior myself! I can't ignore what I know to be true about Aguirre.” We were not aware that 'Aguirre' had any close friends, family members, or confidants named “Rock On”. Moreover, we wonder, exactly what certain and exact information one must have to make such interesting and clear public statements?

Posted by Really? | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 9:29 am

Oh, and Really?....who is the "we" in "we wonder, exactly what certain and exact information one must have to make such interesting and clear public statements?" I speak from my own personal experience and of first hand accounts of numerous others who've worked for the man. The manner in which he operates is well known among anyone who's actually been there, or is open enough to the facts.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 27, 2008 12:43 am

If the man has broken the law, then take him to court yourself, or just turn over all your documentation and other evidence to the DA. I am sure she will make a good job of it all. Otherwise, this sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. Almost as if it is someone who is upset about being let-go or was passed-over for promotion or something like that, and that is what 'we' think.

Posted by Really? | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 3:59 pm

Really, your speculation is quite imaginative, but completely off the mark. I left for a better opportunity. And Aguirre's behavior HAS been well documented by the Court with his shotty and unethical practices. Need I remind you of them? But I know people who were fired, plenty of them. And they were fired because they refused to be unethical, refused to put their bar card on the line, or just because of their associations with others. Some left because they couldn't take Aguirre's treatment. Did you know Aguirre had to move from the big plush office on the 16th floor with panoramic views of the bay to a corner office 1/3 the size because his foul-mouthed rants are so disruptive? Common knowledge among those who were there. No, this is not sour grapes...this is reality. You've never been there, so you don't know. Case closed.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
July 29, 2008 4:02 pm

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.