Three great examples of San Diego’s way of dealing with itself:
- Update: I’m an idiot, who needs to learn to read a bit closer. I had a bit in here making fun of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce for awarding its own CFO the best CFO of the year award. But reading closer you can see that the award for best CFO was given “during a San Diego Business Journal awards ceremony.” I read over that press release a few times but I missed it each time. That’s nobody’s fault but mine. My apologies to the Chamber.
- With a little more comprehensive product of self-analysis on hand, Mayor Jerry Sanders made a show of the presentation of the report his staff did about … well … his staff. Sanders released the findings of a report on his office’s failings with regard to the controversial Sunroad debacle.
The U-T scooped everyone having apparently secured an advance copy of the report. But the paper’s article does not actually mention who “the investigators” were that authored the report.
It just says “investigators.” The report’s chief author was JoAnne SawyerKnoll, whom the mayor hired to run the Office of Ethics and Integrity. The mayor created the office shortly after his election.
SawyerKnoll reports directly to the mayor.
- And — this is related — the final oddity of the day: Did anyone else find it strange to learn that City Attorney Mike Aguirre decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Sanders as he presented the report? Aguirre had accused Sanders of acting in a corrupt manner dealing with Sunroad and his staff of committing illegal acts. The report the mayor was releasing basically denies that:
No evidence was found whatsoever of conspiracy, fraud, corruption, illegal conduct, violation of any federal or state law or regulation or improper influence by or of any City staff related to any staff actions which may have played a part in the Sunroad Centrum 12 building reaching an elevation in violation of the FAA regulations.
So let’s get this straight: Aguirre decides to stand with the mayor when he released this report. Aguirre utters conciliatory statements about the mayor and says something about reconciling their differences.
Does this mean Aguirre endorses the report? He refused to contest it and stood right there with the mayor to roll it out. How else are we supposed to interpret that?
If the mayor was still corrupt in Aguirre’s eyes and if he was presenting a report that said he wasn’t corrupt, wouldn’t Aguirre be obligated to argue that either a) the report was an invalid whitewash or b) that he, Aguirre, now recognizes he was wrong?
Doesn’t sound like he’s interested in doing either.