Will Shinoff, Sleeth and Stutz law firm finally be forced out of MiraCosta College?

This blog long ago called for Daniel Shinoff to stop digging MiraCosta College ever deeper into the morass he created there. It seems that Superior Court Judge Michael Anello agrees.

Here is an article about the effort to disqualify Shinoff, Sleeth and other Stutz law firm lawyers from representing MiraCosta College.

NORTH COUNTY TIMES
August 25, 2007

VISTA ---- Superior Court Judge Michael Anello heard arguments Friday for and against disqualifying the law firm representing MiraCosta College in the case of a former vice president who has sued the college, but issued no final ruling...

However, in a tentative ruling issued Thursday, Anello sided with attorney Tracy Warren in granting the disqualification.

Warren represents Julie Hatoff, the former vice president of instruction accused by college officials of "wasting taxpayer money" and "protecting a rogue employee." She faces disciplinary action by the college before an administrative law judge.

Hatoff sued the college in May, alleging breach of contract, negligence, extortion, harassment and labor law violations.

In his tentative ruling, Anello said Daniel Shinoff, a partner in the law firm Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz, violated a rule requiring lawyers to clearly inform people who they represent.

Warren said in court Friday and in court documents that Shinoff had opportunities in five meetings during the investigation of the illegal sale of palm trees from the campus horticulture department to tell Hatoff that he represented the college ---- not her as an officer of the college.

Warren said Shinoff guaranteed Hatoff confidential "attorney-client privilege" protection but then used information she provided to build a case against her.

Jack Sleeth, an attorney with Shinoff's law firm, argued Friday that Hatoff was never his client, and so no rules prescribing the attorney-client relationship pertain.


http://northcountytimes.com/articles/2007/08/25/news/coastal/23_47_488_24_07.txt
This is an earlier version of the article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/24/news/coastal/21_08_528_23_07.txt

[Interestingly enough, attorney Ann Smith, of San Diego MEA pension fame, violated the rule to clearly inform a client if they are already representing someone who is in opposition to that client. Ann Smith asked me a lot of questions in January 2002 when I went to her office. Then I found out that she never considered representing my interests, and was helping those who were opposing me].

Strange bedfellows: Right and left wingers working together

When I notice strange bedfellows, I look for the unusual situation that has brought them together.

It could be that they are working together for the common good. Or it could be that they have cooked up a scheme to benefit themselves personally at the expense of the common good.

The latter seems to be the case with the courtship between San Diego City Employee spokespeople (such as Ann Smith and Jim Carter), and Republican office holders such as former Mayor Dick Murphy and City Council President Scott Peters.

This leaves the Democratic Party in San Diego in a fix. It seems to be every man for himself in the Democratic Party. I'm guessing that Ann Smith and MEA President Judie Italiano are Democrats, but they've taken a path that benefits themselves but has offended voters, taxpayers, and Democrats. Ann Smith and Judie Italiano have damaged the Democratic Party tremendously. No wonder all five County Supervisors are Republicans.

Ann Smith regarding transparency

I don't think that Municipal Employees Association attorney Ann Smith is comfortable with the increased transparency in government that Donna Frye and others are trying to bring to San Diego.

The SD City Council doesn't want another $1 billion surprise regarding underfunded pensions, but Ann Smith doesn't seem to care much. She doesn't see it as her problem, or the MEA's problem.

So when the Committee on Government Efficiency and OPENNESS created a policy requiring mandatory discussion of unfunded accrued liability, and was set to send the new policy to the full council for a vote, Ann Smith spoke up and insisted that the council had to meet and confer with her (and other unions) before voting.

I can certainly understand that rules should be followed, Ann, but you didn't feel that way when the pension was underfunded in order to give benefits to union presidents and workers. How many jobs have been lost as a result of that underfunding? How much infrastructure goes unrepaired? How much city property will have to be sold to make sure that the fallout of the illegal underfunding deal falls on anybody but you? It doesn't seem to me that you care about anyone you aren't paid to care about, Ann.

You have no remorse for your role in the underfunding deal, do you, Ann Smith?

You smugly argue that the statute of limitations protects you from liability. If you can get away with it, it wasn't wrong? Is that what you think?

Here is a portion of the minutes of that meeting:
ACTIONS
Committee on Government Efficiency and Openness
September 26, 2005
Updating Council Policy 300-06 to include a MANDATORY DISCUSSION OF UNFUNDED ACCRUED ACTUARIAL LIABILITY (UAAL) PRIOR TO MEET & CONFER SESSIONS. (See Councilmember Frye’s September 15, 2005, letters; Ann M. Smith’s September 9, 2005, letter; City Attorney’s August 31, 2005, memo)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ann Smith, San Diego Municipal Employees Association (MEA): Stated that MEA supports the item as long as any change in the council policy is properly discussed in a meet and confer session with the recognized employee organizations before it is approved by the full City Council.
ACTION:
Motion by Chair Frye, second by Councilmember Maienschein to
recommend to the full City Council that the language contained in the CityAttorney’s memorandum be added to Council Policy 300-06 with the understanding that the existing policy requires that the City conduct a meet and confer session with the recognized labor organizations regarding the change.
VOTE:
2-0; Frye-yea, Young-not present, Maienschein-yea

Ann Smith and Judi Italiano: working for the rank and file? Or for themselves?

MEA Attorney Anne M. Smith

Voice of San Diego's Letters column draws a lot of attention. I was interested in this post:

Leanne wrote on July 30, 2007 8:47 AM:

"MEA could save a lot of money by getting rid of the Italiano family trust. Judi gets a director's retirement plus an equal amount in consultant fees from MEA, last I heard, and happily hires family members as additional consultants and staff. If Anne M. Smith threatens to blackmail you by saying that she'll walk if you get rid of Italiano, then kiss her good bye and hire an attorney who is not more committed to Italiano then to the union. MEA has been run disgracefully for years. I cry no tears for anyone except employees forced to pay forced agency fees to a union that has questionable business practices."


Leanne's post triggered an angry response from Kathi Ward:

Kathi Ward wrote on July 30, 2007 4:55 PM:

"Leanne, you speak as if you know Ann Smith, but I know you could not possibly know Ann Smith - not even a little bit. Ann's heart and soul is devoted to MEA and it's members - and she fights her heart out so that you can keep your hard earned benefits. Yes, Ann is there every day - fighting for city employees - even those like you, who seem to resent her. You are bad mouthing the ONLY entity who is in there fighting for YOU! I'm glad I don't know you."


Since I do know Ann Smith, and I know from personal experience how Smith and elected officials cover up wrongdoing, I decided to weigh in. Here's my post:

Maura Larkins wrote on July 31, 2007 12:58 PM:

"Ann Smith is a true friend to union leaders, but she's not so helpful to the rank and file of MEA or other unions. I believe that both the city and the unions need to be operated in a more transparent manner. City and union leaders seem to operate for their own personal benefit rather that for the benefit of the people who pay their salaries--and their lawyers."


I don't usually get direct responses to my comments, but this time I did. Here's what Kathi Ward, who works for MEA, wrote to me:

Kathi Ward wrote on July 31, 2007 3:22 PM:

"Maura, like I told Leanne - you don't know Ann Smith. Everything she does is for the rank and file employees of MEA. Why don't you give up some of your personal time and get involved in your union so you can see what is really going on? Or is it easier to do nothing and sit on the sidelines and just criticize?"


Here's my response:

Maura Larkins writes:

I do know Ann Smith. I spoke with her at length, and corresponded with her, when she was working for my union, Chula Vista Educators. She was helping union leaders cover up wrongdoing.

I believe unions are necessary to the healthy functioning of our economic system, but, just like government officials, union leaders often betray the rank and file because of personal politics and desire for power or money.

I believe Ann Smith would have blown the whistle on the illegal San Diego City pension deal if it hadn't been personally beneficial financially to MEA's president. Keeping quiet about wrongdoing seems to be what a lawyer has to do to keep a job with a union.

That's equally true for lawyers for public entities.

Speaking of public entity lawyers, there is one big exception in San Diego. There is one public entity lawyer in San Diego who is not appointed by officeholders or administrators, but instead is elected by the voters. In the last election, voters chose Mike Aguirre, who DOES NOT COVER UP WRONGDOING BY OFFICIALS. Do we want a City Attorney who will represent only the powerholders? Should the city attorney be a personal lawyer for officeholders? Or should he represent the people of the city? Should he prosecute crimes and file civil lawsuits no matter who is guilty, or should he cover up wrongdoing by employees, elected officials and their friends?

See the whole discussion at:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/08/01/letters/038aguirre073007.txt#info