Hedgecock to Resign as San Diego Mayor Friday

Mayor Roger Hedgecock, whose 2 1/2 years at City Hall were marked first by a heady popularity and later by criminal accusations, Friday announced plans to resign as a result of his conviction on 13 felony counts.

Describing his planned resignation as being “in the best interest of the city,” Hedgecock, a 39-year-old moderate Republican who less than two years ago was hailed as a rising star in statewide politics, said at a brief City Hall news conference that he plans to step down as San Diego’s 30th mayor next Friday.

“I can no longer offer leadership,” said Hedgecock, flanked by aides, some of whom were misty-eyed. “ . . . It’s time for the people of this city to elect someone else who can.”

“I believe now that it is most important that San Diegans refocus their attention on the issues and the real opportunities facing our city,” added Hedgecock, whose two trials--the first of which ended in a mistrial caused by a hung jury last February--dominated local news and diminished his effectiveness at City Hall for the last year. “San Diego must move forward, developing again a consensus around a shared vision of the future.”

The one-week delay in the effective date of his resignation, Hedgecock explained, will “leave some time to wrap up” and plan for an orderly transition of power to Republican City Councilman Bill Mitchell, who, by virtue of holding the largely ceremonial post of deputy mayor, will become acting mayor. Mitchell, a 52-year-old San Diego native, is regarded as a populist and is perhaps best known for his unorthodox, occasionally offbeat ideas and comments.

Hedgecock, a former two-term county supervisor first elected mayor in a special May, 1983, race that followed Pete Wilson’s election to the U.S. Senate, announced his resignation in a two-minute statement, after which he refused to answer questions.

Reading from a prepared text, a subdued Hedgecock said that he entered politics because he wanted to “help San Diego to retain and, indeed, improve its quality of life during a period of time when this city and county were growing and maturing as a major metropolitan area.”

“I still have this idealism--this definition of ‘public service’ as giving something back to the community, a community where I grew up and where my family and I have really felt so much a part,” Hedgecock said. “The idealism . . . was the reason I ran for mayor in the first place. And it’s what has motivated my actions as mayor. And it is why I have concluded that in the best interest of the city, I should resign as mayor.”

His statement made no reference to his conviction or legal appeals.

City Atty. John W. Witt has said that Hedgecock faced automatic ouster from office on Nov. 6, when he is to be sentenced by Judge William L. Todd Jr. on his conviction last Wednesday by a Superior Court jury of conspiracy and 12 perjury counts, all felonies. Some lawyers, however, suggested that Hedgecock, who faces a maximum of eight years’ imprisonment and loss of his law license, could have challenged, on constitutional grounds, any effort to force him from office before conclusion of his appeals.

Although the mayor decided, in the words of one confidant, not “to hang on when there’s nothing to hang onto,” his defense attorney, Oscar Goodman, terming the 6 1/2-day sequestration of Hedgecock’s jury “a war of attrition,” announced later Friday that he intends to file a motion for a new trial next week.

Pointing to public comments by jury foreman Richard Stark that the jurors were determined not to deadlock, as the jury did in the mayor’s first trial, Goodman said he plans to argue that being sequestered, combined with the jury’s more than 60 hours of deliberations, “wore down” jurors who initially believed that Hedgecock should be acquitted.

In interviews, Stark has explained that when the jury took its first straw vote on the conspiracy charge facing Hedgecock on the fourth day of deliberations, at least two jurors sided with the mayor. However, after two days of additional deliberations--and after Judge Todd rejected Goodman’s request for a mistrial on the grounds that being sequestered for so long could have a “coercive effect” on jurors--the jurors who initially sided with Hedgecock switched their votes to guilty.

“The vibes were to find (Hedgecock) guilty,” Goodman said, adding that being sequestered “eroded (the) ability” of the initially pro-Hedgecock jurors “to stick to” their first impressions about the case. If his request for a mistrial is denied, Goodman said, he plans to file normal appeals seeking to overturn the verdict.

About an hour before his news conference late Friday morning, Hedgecock and his staff met in the mayor’s office with Mitchell, who chaired council meetings during Hedgecock’s 10-week retrial.

“Very casually and very calmly, (Hedgecock) said, ‘Bill, I’m going to be asking you to assume the mayor’s duties in one week,’ ” Mitchell said. “He said, ‘I don’t think I should stay here until Nov. 6, so I’m allowing one week for transition.’ ”

Mel Buxbaum, Hedgecock’s press secretary, said that, at Mitchell’s request, Hedgecock’s staff has agreed to remain in the mayor’s office “as long as necessary . . . to insure a smooth transition” after Mitchell becomes acting mayor. Buxbaum added that Hedgecock has asked his staff to spend the next week preparing a status report of ongoing city projects to be distributed to Mitchell and the other council members.

Under city law, the council must decide within 30 days after Hedgecock’s resignation whether to fill the vacancy through an appointment or, the more likely option, schedule a special election to select a successor to serve out Hedgecock’s term, which expires in December, 1988.

Hedgecock’s conviction has touched off political maneuvering by a handful of potential candidates, including Police Chief William Kolender; Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego); Maureen O’Connor, the former councilwoman whom Hedgecock narrowly defeated in the 1983 mayoral race, and at least four current council members--Mitchell, Bill Cleator, Ed Struiksma and Mike Gotch.

If an election is scheduled, the winner must be inaugurated within 150 days--a timetable under which Hedgecock’s successor would take office no later than mid April, according to Jack Fishkin, an assistant city elections officer. However, to avoid the costs of a special election, some council members have suggested that the city ordinance be amended to permit the mayoral race to coincide with next June’s statewide primary.

Because Hedgecock’s fall from grace began so early in his term, many local political and civic leaders Friday characterized his tenure on the 11th floor at City Hall as the quintessence of unfulfilled potential.

Comparing his former boss to John F. Kennedy and actor James Dean, J. Michael McDade argued that if Hedgecock had served a full, unblemished term, “probably you’d need a whole book to write out the accomplishments.”

“What you’re left with here is a great amount of promise that will not be fulfilled,” said McDade, Hedgecock’s former chief of staff and now a partner in a local law firm. “You see the great picture and the potential that’s there, but unfortunately, time is what’s necessary to write history books. And he won’t be given the time to do it.”

Hedgecock’s predecessor, Sen. Wilson (R-Calif.), called Hedgecock’s resignation “the end of . . . a promising career.”

“He was attractive, bright and energetic--it’s a very sad thing from that standpoint,” Wilson said.

Others, however, were less charitable in their assessments of Hedgecock’s legacy.

“Legacy? I don’t think there is going to be a legacy,” said San Diego Chamber of Commerce President Lee Grissom, whose once-close alliance with Hedgecock was shattered when Grissom publicly urged the mayor to resign last year after the indictment. Calling Hedgecock’s conviction “a scar” on the city, Grissom added, “That is a story we’re going to discuss wherever we go outside of the city boundaries.”

Noted as much for his abrasive personality as for his legislative achievements, Hedgecock brought a strong record as an environmentalist and the rallying cry of “Avoid Los Angelization!” to City Hall 29 months ago. Throughout his tenure, Hedgecock persistently invoked that slogan in his frequent legislative battles for growth-management policies designed to prevent unchecked urban sprawl from destroying the “livability”--notably, the scenic mid-city canyons and generally unclogged freeways--on which San Diegans pride themselves.

Hedgecock’s first months in office were heady ones, as his considerable accomplishments--highlighted by his successful fights for construction of a downtown convention center and expansion of the San Diego Trolley--raised his public approval ratings to such heights that his reelection in 1984 appeared to be a fait accompli . In one poll taken in October, 1983, 67% of those interviewed gave Hedgecock a job rating of good or excellent, 30% said he was doing a fair job and the poor rating was only 3%.

However, Hedgecock’s popularity plummeted after he revealed in early 1984 that he had received a $130,000 loan to renovate his South Mission Hills house based on an oral agreement with Nancy Hoover. Hoover was a principal in the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co. Later, it was learned that Hoover and J. David founder J. David (Jerry) Dominelli had invested more than $360,000 in Tom Shepard & Associates, the political consulting firm that ran Hedgecock’s 1983 and 1984 campaigns.

While Hedgecock characterized the two former J. David executives’ investments in Shepard’s firm as “a routine business deal,” prosecutors, noting that Hedgecock was the firm’s major client at the time, viewed the funds as disguised campaign donations.

In September, 1984, the San Diego County Grand Jury indicted Hedgecock, Hoover, Dominelli and Shepard on charges that they conspired in that alleged scheme; the perjury counts facing Hedgecock charged that he intentionally falsified financial disclosure statements to conceal the plot to circumvent the city’s $250-per-person campaign contribution limit. Hedgecock’s three alleged co-conspirators will be tried separately later.

The controversy drew former television newscaster and La Jolla millionaire Dick Carlson into the 1984 mayoral race, in which his central theme was that Hedgecock needed to be ousted from City Hall because he had given San Diego “a black eye.” Hedgecock, however, countered with a Trumanesque “give-’em-hell” style based on the argument that voters had “nothing to lose” by reelecting him because, if he were ultimately convicted, he would be removed from office and a new election would be held.

Hedgecock’s strategy proved to be a resounding success, as he was reelected by a 58%-to-42% margin last November, only seven weeks after his indictment--a victory that prompted even his detractors to label him a political Houdini.

“One down and one to go!” Hedgecock said confidently after his reelection.

The jury’s verdict Wednesday, however, blocked Hedgecock from completing the second half of that political and legal equation. Indeed, Hedgecock’s action Friday served as a bleak reminder of a remark made by the mayor’s attorney in the first trial, Michael Pancer, who said last fall that Hedgecock’s reelection campaign and trial were properly viewed as tandem, not separate, events.

“Winning one isn’t good enough,” Pancer said then. “We have to go 2-for-2.”

Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino contributed to this report.