Showing posts with label . Goldsmith (Jan Goldsmith). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Goldsmith (Jan Goldsmith). Show all posts

Sunday, August 03, 2014

San Diegans are paying to defend a politician who claims San Diegans have no right to obtain records

You think that just because you're paying the lawyer, that means he's acting in your interest?

No, public entity lawyers protect public officials.  They rarely seek to protect the public.  (Mike Aguirre was an exception to this rule.  He believed he represented the people of San Diego.)

We elected them--and now we're paying for their efforts to keep us ignorant of what's going on.

Both Voice of San Diego and UT-San Diego  are covering the topic:


Morning Report: What to Watch for in Big PD Misconduct Deal


...San Diegans are now in the position of paying to defend a politician who claims San Diegans have no right to obtain the records of public business he has conducted over his personal devices and accounts.
Goldsmith’s office recently coughed up around 1,000 emails relating to city business that went to his personal account, but noted he wasn’t legally required to do so. 
Secret Public Records
On the topic of the public’s interest, the Public Utility Commission decided to withhold an expert report on what went wrong at the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Full disclosure of that report wouldn’t be in the public’s best interest either, according to a PUC attorney.
Shortly after denying the request to release the report in defense of the public’s best interest, the PUC released the report...

 The issue of concealing public business in private emails will be addressed by the California Supreme Court in  Smith v. City of San Jose (March 19, 2013, No. 1-09-CV-150427).

State's high court takes email case

Justices will decide whether officials can keep public business secret by using personal devices

The California Supreme Court will review a lower court ruling that kept otherwise public records out of public hands if they were sent using private email accounts and devices.

The San Jose case involves a resident who asked to see emails and texts of City Council members but was rejected because the communication took place on personal devices and accounts. It’s garnering statewide interest as electronic devices make it possible for public officials to handle more public business outside the usual communications systems...

Monday, July 01, 2013

Activist who chalked anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks found not guilty on all charges

What was City Attorney Jan Goldsmith thinking?

Acquitted on all 13 counts of vandalism, jury says Jeff Olson should be free
A review of the plea-deal offers deputy city attorney Hazard said were fair
Dorian Hargrove
San Diego Reader
July 1, 2013

With each of the 13 "not guilty" verdicts, defense attorney Tom Tosdal grabbed Jeff Olson's shoulder in a sign of support and relief. On Monday, jurors rejected all 13-counts of vandalism charges filed against Olson for scribbling anti-Bank of America messages in water soluble chalk.

It was a good day for Olson and Tosdal and for free-speech supporters across the country.

Not so much so for San Diego's City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, his office, and for Superior Court Judge Howard Shore.

After the verdicts were read, Judge Shore explained the reasoning behind his decision to bar Tosdal from using first amendment rights as a defense as well as for placing a gag order on the defendant prohibiting him from speaking to the media.

"The media set the tone in this case by talking about a potential 13-year sentence. It had a tendency to infuriate the public instead of informing it. Anyone in the system, the lawyers and anyone involved, knew that maximum sentence would never be handed out but still it was reported."

Outside the courtroom Paige Hazard, the lead prosecutor on the case, also dismissed media reports and blamed Olson for turning down what she said were fair plea offers.

Hazard's comments were later backed-up by an official statement from the City Attorney's Office which criticized Olson for forcing the City's hand and taking the case to trial.

"As with most graffiti cases, Mr. Olson was offered reduction to an infraction after completing volunteer work service cleaning up graffiti," read the statement. "His refusal resulted in the trial and his successful defense."

Looking at those offers, however, fair is one of the last words that comes to mind.

On May 16, Hazard told Olson the City would drop the case if he agreed to serve 32-hours of community service, attend an 8-hour seminar by the "Corrective Behavior Institute," pay Bank of America $6,299 in restitution for the clean-up, waive all Fourth Amendment rights guarding against search and seizures, and surrender his driver's license for three year period."

Olson refused.

So on June 18, as the June 25 trial date neared, Hazard offered Olson another deal.

Olson would plead guilty to one count of vandalism, agree to serve three-years probation, pay restitution --amount undetermined, spend 24-hours cleaning up graffiti, and surrender his driver's license for 2-years.

"I didn't see how that was fair," said Olson a few hours after the trial. "Why should I have to give up my license for two-years and serve 3-years probation just for exercising my first amendment rights? It's sad to see the City Attorney's Office now laying the blame on me for wasting taxpayer resources. It was their decision to take this to court, not mine."

Olson, able to speak freely without fear of violating Judge Shore's gag order, said the whole thing was never supposed to go this far.

"All I wanted to do was ask that people invest in San Diego, not some big Wall Street bank based in Charlotte, North Carolina. For me, it's the same when it comes to simple things like beer or produce. I choose to keep my money locally. I say that proudly, a Stone Craft beer in hand. I choose to buy my produce at the local farmer's market, not some major supermarket. These are fairly simple choices that can help build a sustainable economy here, in San Diego."

Activist who chalked anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks found not guilty on all charges
ELLIOT SPAGAT
Associated Press
July 1, 2013

SAN DIEGO — A jury on Monday acquitted an activist of vandalism charges for chalking anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks, delivering a swift verdict on a prosecution that the city's own mayor said was "stupid."

Jeff Olson, 40, turned to his attorney, nodded and smiled as verdicts were read on charges that could have sent him to jail for 13 years — one year for each misdemeanor count — and brought a $13,000 fine. He was charged with scrawling messages with water-soluble chalk on city sidewalks outside Bank of America branches from April to August 2012, including "Shame on B of A," ''No thanks, big banks," and a drawing of an octopus reaching for dollar bills.

The San Diego Superior Court jury deliberated five hours after a four-day trial that pitted Mayor Bob Filner against City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who prosecuted the case. Jail time is highly unusual for graffiti convictions, which typically result in fines or community service.

Filner called it a "nonsense prosecution" that responded to complaints from Bank of America.

"It's washable chalk, it's political slogans," Filner said last week. "We're not even responding to the public's complaint ... I think it's a stupid case. It's costing us money."

The city attorney's office said it offered to reduce the charges to an infraction if Olson agreed to perform community service by cleaning up graffiti but he refused. The office said it respected the verdict, which it said was referred by the police department.

"Graffiti remains vandalism in the state of California," the city attorney's office said. "Under the law, there is no First Amendment right to deface property, even if the writing is easily removed, whether the message is aimed at banks or any other person or group. We are, however, sympathetic to the strong public reaction to this case and the jury's message."

Olson, who was inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, said he was relieved by the outcome and that the prosecution brought more attention to his views than he ever imagined possible.

"I couldn't have done better if I rented an airplane with a banner and put billboards up all over town," he said.

Still, he isn't planning on more sidewalk scrawls.

"I going to think of a more creative way to get my message across," he said.

The prosecution was the latest tiff between San Diego's mayor and elected city attorney. Earlier this year, the mayor was a witness at a trial on behalf of an animal-rights activist for seals who was prosecuted for removing a flag at a beach that was declared open to the public. After the testimony, activist Bryan Pease pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing.

Filner, who last month used his veto power to cut $500,000 from the city attorney's budget, crashed a Goldsmith news conference in February amid a dispute over how to spend money to promote tourism. Filner accused the city attorney of "unethical and unprofessional conduct," saying he was giving legal advice through news media.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Jan Goldsmith seems to be channelling Mike Aguirre regarding pension underfunding

City Attorney Explains Potential Pension Bombshell
Voice of San Diego
LIAM DILLON
March 9, 2010

San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith brought the noise on pension reform at City Council on Monday afternoon, publicly stating his belief that city employees could be responsible for part of the city's $2.1 billion unfunded pension liability.

His opinion came after a presentation by the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System. The retirement system's attorney, Elaine Reagan, said the city could not make employees help pay down that debt.

Goldsmith disagreed and gave his own presentation supporting his position that they could. Changes in employee contribution rates, he said, are not guaranteed, meaning they could be modified through labor negotiations.

"The minute you interpret our charter as requiring that the city pick up all costs, you are stating that they are vested rights," Goldsmith said. "I do not agree with that. I do not believe that interpretation is in good faith. I think it is flawed."

As the council discussed the issue, Goldsmith made sure to leave room to change his mind on the retirement system's opinion. He gave no formal opinion in writing beyond his presentation, and said he wanted to study the issue more.

But Goldsmith did not back down from his contention that the city, not the retirement system, interprets the City Charter section.

"This is not the SDCERS-form of government," Goldsmith said...