Friday, Aug. 24, 2007 | Is what’s good for the goose really good for the gander? I was intrigued by Evan McLaughlin‘s story, “Aguirre Collects Checks to Pay Back Himself.”

How can Mike Aguirre claim there is no conflict with taking donations from people who are engaged in business with the city, especially when they are benefiting from is legal opinions?

His assertions become even more ludicrous when the timing of the donations is examined. Several of the donations were closely followed by favorable opinions issued by Mr. Aguirre. By his own admissions, Mr. Aguirre says it puts the City Attorney’s Office in a “difficult spot.”

I wonder if those contributors had to wait as long as the mayor, council and other city departments have to wait for the city attorney’s office to file opinions.

The rules of paying off campaign debts have been changed to prevent such appearances of impropriety. Mr. Aguirre however, is not affected by that legislation because it took effect after he was elected. Mr. Aguirre is admittedly taking advantage of being exempt from the new rules because they cannot be enforced retroactively. I find it very amusing since he is trying to enforce new laws retroactively when it benefits him.

Mr. Aguirre is trying to use a new law regarding statutes of limitations to aid him in rolling back pension benefits but refuses to accept new laws that affect his ability to collect money for himself. You can’t have it both ways Mr. Aguirre. You have seriously damaged your integrity.

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.