Getting It Right This Time

By Bob Nelson, Bankers Hill

E-MAIL STORY

Sunday, May 11, 2008 | Thanks to voiceofsandiego.org and David Washburn for your continued reporting on the important complexities of Proposition C.

As you have observed, the manner in which the city auditor will be appointed is key to the debate. In Mr. Washburn's most recent post he includes a citation from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA.) In their "model legislation" they declare that the auditor should only be appointed by a vote of the people or by the city council.

It is useful to remember the phrase, "consider the source." In this case the source -- ALGA -- is composed of (drumroll)... auditors appointed by their councils/legislatures and elected auditors. Not much surprise what they conclude about the "right" way to do it.

Mr. Washburn also notes that the financial monitor imposed on the city by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Stanley Keller, has the opposite view. This nationally recognized audit expert concludes that Proposition C's more balanced approach -- appointment by the mayor and confirmation by the Council -- is smarter. And, again, consider the source: Mr. Keller is totally independent, has no axe to grind, and has only one job: helping San Diego get it right this time.

5 Comments so far on this story...

While we enjoy the luxury of hashing this out across the blogs our city's infrastructure is crumbling,homes are in foreclosure and families of working men and women are going into bankruptcy.There are literally thousands of our fellow citizens and hundreds of locally owned businesses that critically need the work and paychecks that municipal infrastructure bonding and defered maintenance programs will provide. The trickle down effects are well known.Prop C,as imperfect as it may appear at the moment to some,does completely satisfy those who make the much needed decisions that can provide this critical fiscal relief in our deteriorating economy.So says our IBA and SEC.Those who claim to be OF and FOR the people ignore these immmediate and complelling needs of these constituencies at their political peril.Grand-standing is alot different than Watch-dogging. Foxes and hen-houses,notwithst working families need help NOW.Vote YES on C.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
May 12, 2008 10:15 am

Voice letters from Prop C public relations spinner Bob Nelson get a disproportionate amount of ink these days. Enough already. Nelson denigrates the professional society of municipal government auditors for their standards calling for best-practices separation between mayors and auditors. Nelson then touts the view of an SEC "monitor," a man paid handsomely by the city to watch over our painful, far-from-accomplishe fiscal recovery -- NOT to give opinions on city charter changes such as flawed Prop C. Prop C sets in stone provisions for the Mayor and his people to control the City Auditor, but that's no surprise, as the Prop C proposal was floated by a bunch of mayoral appointees to a Charter review committee with help from mayoral pals on City Council. We can do better in November. Vote No on Prop C.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
May 12, 2008 8:57 pm

We may need reminding that the Charter Cmte proceedings were public meetings,held in various locales throughout the City,and broadcast on TV 24,repeatedly.They were democratic in structure and follow Robert's Rules by all appearances. The public was invited to participate and there was frequent dissent from within the Cmte and the community.They were,however,very poorly attended by those now raising these objections. Mr Nelson is clearly an advocate for Prop C yet he seems to avoid the tendency towards demonization which has become the stock in trade for the opponents of Prop C.Can it be true that everyone in this administration,on the Charter Cmte,of the City Council and in support of Pro C are mercenary partners in some wide spread Faustian bargain with this Mayor?Interesting that those that hold this view now are such a partisan,albeit,very vocal and hyper-vigilant minority yet were absent during the hearings.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
May 15, 2008 6:54 am

Mr. Griffiths, Prop C is flawed because it allows the Mayor to control the City Auditor. Vote No on C in June. The Charter Committee that you mention (which brought Prop C forward) initially was split into three sub-committees which met simultaneously but in different places -- tough to monitor. The large group may have followed Roberts Rules, but not always the CA Brown Act which requires sufficient advance public notice of meetings and published agendas -- tough to monitor. The Committee's work was telescoped into three summer months, when the attention of otherwise civic-minded people and the press is diverted to vacation schedules -- poor public education. Finally, the Committee's agenda was determined by the mayor's office and its meetings were staffed by the mayor's people. No surprise that Prop C is skewed toward mayoral control rather than an independent auditor.

Posted by FO'NZ | reply to this comment
May 16, 2008 1:27 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.