A Mayor Who Wanted It All

There is little joy in San Diego today over the felony convictions of Mayor Roger Hedgecock. Even his political enemies and those who have felt the sting of his famous ill temper recognize the multifaceted tragedy that culminated in Hedgecock’s 13-count conviction Wednesday for conspiracy and perjury: a successful political career abruptly ended in its prime, a happy-go-lucky city divided and dragged through the muck for months on end, a family left in shock.

Perhaps most disappointing of all is the wasted potential. In less than three years as mayor, Hedgecock showed flashes of inspired leadership. He opened San Diego city government to women, gays and minorities as none of his predecessors had. He stood firm against reckless development. He took the lead in dealing with the problems of the homeless. He succeeded in winning voter approval of a much-needed convention center. Without a doubt, he could have been one of the best mayors in the city’s history, possibly the best.

But Hedgecock was fatally flawed by a streak of arrogance that was intertwined with his large ambition. That made him controversial throughout his career. In his days as a two-term county supervisor--before he replaced Pete Wilson as mayor in 1983--he came to be hated by many county employees for his abusive treatment and the obvious low esteem in which he held them. He was frequently haughty and rude to members of the public who came before the board. And, during a mayoral campaign, he once called an opposing candidate “mentally ill” in a fit of pique after a debate. This same arrogance led Hedgecock to ignore the admonitions of his friends that he could become wealthy in business and the practice of law or powerful in politics--but not both. Hedgecock wanted it all.

He fell prey to that ailment common among politicians that makes them confuse what is good for them with what is good for the citizenry. He reasoned that being mayor was so important he could ignore the campaign contribution laws and accept more than $360,000 in illegal campaign contributions from friends Nancy Hoover and J. David (Jerry) Dominelli. He decided the city needed a “mayor’s mansion,” so he accepted an unrecorded $130,000 loan from Hoover to remodel a large house he owned. When Dominelli and Hoover’s J. David & Co. investment firm collapsed in scandal early last year, the spotlight fell on Hedgecock and the trio’s complex financial ties.

Despite the controversy, Hedgecock remained popular. To many he continued to represent the best hope for a livable city open to all manner of people. As his first trial was about to begin last November, he was elected to a full term as mayor. Running against a well-financed opponent, he carried every council district in that election, faring well in minority areas where his liberal social views always made him formidable and in the upscale areas he cultivated by his consistent and innovative support of the arts and protection of the environment. But that first trial proved a precursor of things to come. Eleven jurors voted for conviction and only one, a city employee, held out for acquittal, causing a hung jury.

The jury in the retrial appears to have been extraordinarily conscientious, poring over the evidence for four days before taking its first preliminary vote. In all, the sequestered jurors spent 6 1/2 days deliberating the mayor’s fate before finding him guilty on 13 of 16 counts.

Having now taken his case to 24 jurors and failed to convince all but one of his innocence, Hedgecock has no right to complain that his prosecution by Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller, his old rival, was politically motivated and specious. It is, in fact, an example of American jurisprudence at its best.

Roger Hedgecock has only himself to blame for the tragic end to his promising career.