This week, our Lisa Halverstadt broke that news that county prosecutors charged the leader of a local nonprofit with using public dollars to pay for personal expenses.
Amy Knox, former chief operating officer of the Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego, allegedly used money the nonprofit received from the county to distribute overdose reversal drugs to pay for plastic surgery, electricity and credit card bills.
You can read more about the charges here.
I asked Lisa to provide some behind-the-scenes info on this story for my fellow chismosos. Grab some cafecito, here’s what you need to know.
Behind the Story
Andrea: Lisa, we don’t typically cover crime stories at Voice of San Diego. What makes this story different?
Lisa: This one involves a county contractor and raises big questions about the county’s oversight of the many nonprofits that deliver services on its behalf. After the county abruptly cancelled the Harm Reduction Coalition’s two county contracts last summer and I started to dig into what happened, I learned that Knox had been accused of embezzlement in the past. With the help of former rockstar Voice intern Tessa Balc, we tracked down court records showing Knox had previously pleaded guilty to felony grand theft after taking more than $500,000 from a former employer.
Andrea: You noted in your story that you had asked the county back in July about how it vets county contractors, especially high-level staff who would have access to public dollars. Do you have any sense that the county is considering making changes to improve oversight?
Lisa: In the statement it sent out after Knox appeared in court Wednesday, the county said it “will continue to examine and strengthen processes and reinforce accountability to ensure transparency and public trust.”
I’d sure love some specific details after that examination is complete.
Before this news came out, County Supervisor Jim Desmond wrote in an email blast that he had asked county staff for a public presentation on oversight of county social service contracts. (Attn: Supervisor Desmond: I’ve reached out to your office and I’d love to talk!)
Andrea: Do we have any clarity on what funds she allegedly stole? There seemed to be some confusion between the District Attorney’s office and the county.
Lisa: I’m still asking about this. The District Attorney’s Office points to county Board of Supervisors approvals they say show the opioid settlement funds supported the Harm Reduction Coalition’s two county contracts – or at least should have supported those contracts. The county, however, says settlement funds weren’t used for the naloxone distribution contract and though there were initial plans to give the Harm Reduction settlement money for its drug-checking contract, the county ultimately found another funding source. So it appears this seemingly basic fact is something I’ll be continuing to try to nail down this week!
County Pharmacist Quits Second Gig
Back in October, Lisa also reported that the county’s chief pharmacy officer also had a second job as an attorney at a firm that advises pharmaceutical companies.
We wondered, does that present a conflict of interest? Here’s a dispatch from Lisa.
Dear readers, I stayed in touch with the county on this topic after I wrote the initial story in October – and filed multiple public-records act requests before I obtained the county Office of Ethics and Compliance investigation into the county’s top pharmacy official. (Kudos to Voice’s pro-bono attorney Felix Tinkov for all his help!) The investigation concluded that full-time Chief Pharmacy Officer Emily Do failed to fully disclose the law firm gig and that the role presented a potential conflict of interest. She has since quit the second job but remains in county government.
As I read the ethics investigation, I couldn’t help but think of my back-and-forth with the county on this topic last fall – and how much the narrative has shifted since.
In September, I asked spokesperson Tim McClain about Do’s second gig and if she had properly reported it on county disclosure forms.
Here’s how he responded in a mid-September email: “Based on the information provided by Dr. Do as required by the county policy, no incompatible activities were identified.”
Interestingly, the ethics investigation into Do was already underway at the time of McClain’s email. The investigation started in June after an anonymous tip. The county interviewed Do and her boss in September. That investigation found that Do’s disclosures were lacking – and that the they raised structural conflict-of-interest concerns.
Another interested party: One of my related late 2025 public records requests led to the release of a late October email showing that a state Board of Pharmacy investigator sought to confirm Do’s employment as chief pharmacy officer, as well as her pharmacy license number and contact information. It’s unclear what – if anything – happened after this email. The county said at the time it had responded to the state agency request but didn’t “have any information related to the nature of investigation or outcome.”
The state agency’s website for now lists Do’s license as clear. No disciplinary actions have been formally sought and posted online. A spokesperson for the agency has said the pharmacy board can’t confirm or deny whether it received a complaint about Do.
More Chisme to Start Your Week
- The San Diego City Council will hold a meeting tomorrow on the budget for the public. Our City Hall reporter spoke to councilmembers about their budget plans for the fiscal year that begins in July. Read the story here.
- South Bay schools are dealing with some financial challenges. This week, Jim Hinch explained how school districts are confronting declining enrollment and budget deficits.