Would you rather…
Take the Filner resignation deal, as outlined by Jan Goldsmith.. or
have recalled Filner and paid for up to $400,000 for a recall effort ?
***** Filner deal, as outlined by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith*****
1- criminal charges (alleged or real) against Filner are not resolved
2- Filner resigns Aug 30, 2013 at 5:30PM
3- Under CA law, the City would be liable is an employer (Mayor as employee) for financial damages.
4- One claim is filed, several are potential claims.
5- The City Attorney’s Office may defend the City and Filner for those claims. (The City is required to defend the City and will defend the Mayor with Filner’s opinion)
6- The City reserves the right to sue Filner for reimbursement, if damages are awarded.
7- If Filner hires outside council, the City may pay up to $98,000 towards that defense.
8- City reserves complete control over any settlements
A few rules:
1- you can’t answer “both”
2- you can answer “neither” but offer a credible defense
3- try to keep discussions on topic (why eliminating one is preferable to another)
4- try to remain in a state of curiosity rather than judgement –- it’s possible that you might learn something
5- have fun
Comments 6
I may be wrong but I thought the City reserved the right to sue Filner for reimbursement EXCEPT in the McCormack case.
I think this is a good deal for the City for many reasons but avoiding the monetary cost of a recall isn’t one of them. The $400,000 is a pittance compared to the price tag of a special election and with a recall, we are guaranteed only one election (unless a current Council Member becomes Mayor). With a resignation there is a primary and an almost certain general election to follow.
Bigger picture bad deal for taxpayers
Are we to believe that this behavior only started in the last months or so? Filner was in Congress for 20 years before the 8 month stint as mayor.
Is anyone going to make the case this just started? The sad part is that all the enablers and “go along to get along”, “inside baseball” crowd allowed this to continue and not stop it earlier. The deal may be the lesser of two evils, but the system that protects insiders and incumbents from competition, challengers and new ideas is the real culprit.
My take… Is the Filner settlement a good deal for San Diego?
http://www.flashreport.org/index.php?doDate=20130825
HQ, there would have never BEEN a recall election. Filner would have resigned before then, cutting the best deal he could — and avoiding the most lopsided defeat of an incumbent EVER! He likely would have waited until the recall qualified for the ballot, costing “us” a lot (you’d have liked that!).
His resignation would stop the recall election. The we’d have to start over with the special election process, further delaying electing a new mayor.
BTW, the solution is to do ONE special election using “instant runoff” or preference voting. It’s done in many places around the world. It would save us all months of grinding through a painful runoff (not to mention the cost!).
Richard,
My point was that the cost of a recall election is less than the cost of the special election (because there will actually be two elections) meaning that anyone saying this is a good deal simply because we save the cost of the recall is using a bad reason.
I do like the idea of instant-runoff elections and not just for special elections, but for all elections.