Golding, Aide Must Answer Schenk’s Suit on Campaign Slander

A court should decide whether San Diego County Supervisor Susan Golding and campaign consultant Dan Greenblat slandered Lynn Schenk during a bitter 1984 supervisorial campaign, a Superior Court judge ruled Thursday.

Judge Franklin B. Orfield dismissed two allegations of libel and conspiracy against Golding, Greenblat and two other defendants in the case. The ruling came exactly two years after Golding defeated Schenk in an election that was marred by vitriolic exchanges.

Richard Silberman, who is Golding’s husband, and the campaign firm of Johnston & Lewis, were dismissed from the suit. Orfield’s ruling leaves Golding and Greenblat as the only defendants in the $5-million lawsuit brought by Schenk two days after her defeat.

The suit stemmed from a campaign mailer sent by Golding on the weekend and day before the 1984 election. Golding’s mailer incorrectly charged that Schenk, who served as a Cabinet official in the Administration of former Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., was under investigation by the state auditor general for charging personal trips to her work expense account.

State Auditor General Thomas Hayes issued a statement at the time, declaring that he was conducting no such investigation.

In refusing to dismiss the allegation of slander, Orfield found that there is some dispute over the facts relating to the allegation and chose to refer the case to trial. According to Mike Thorsnes, Schenk’s attorney, the slander claim stems from statments made by Golding on television after Hayes denied that he was investigating Schenk.

“After the auditor general denied that he was investigating Lynn, Mr. Greenblat called him and was told the same thing,” Thorsnes said. “Mr. Greenblat related this to Miss Golding, but she still went on television and to the newspapers and repeated the charge, even though she had been told that it wasn’t true. Together, they slandered Lynn by repeating the statements after the auditor general had denied that he was investigating Lynn.”

In dismissing the libel and conspiracy counts, Orfield said that, on Oct. 15, 1984, the state auditor general’s office said that he “was going to do something about auditing Miss Schenk.” The judge suggested that this was a crucial issue in his decision to dismiss the two counts against Golding and Greenblat.

Orfield was careful to refer to the auditor general’s inquiry as an audit and not an investigation.

“It appeared that the unmistakable intention of the auditor was to conduct an audit,” he said.

Orfield also ruled that “erroneous statements are inevitable” in political campaigns, and that “public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased injury from defamatory statements.”

Schenk’s attorneys never denied that she is a public figure, and Orfield said that, in order to find that Golding did commit libel, Schenk would have to prove that her statements were made with malice.

Orfield also appeared to dismiss Hayes’ 1984 denial that he was investigating Schenk. Instead, Orfield ruled that Golding was probably relying on information that she considered reliable when she made the allegations and did not have to verify its authenticity.

“I think it’s quite clear that (Golding’s) failure to conduct an objective investigation is largely inconsequential. . . . It depends on whether or not she relied on some source that is relatively reliable,” said Orfield.

But in deciding on the slander count, Orfield found that “a jury might clearly and convincingly conclude that Golding’s statements were slanderous.”

Schenk expressed disappointment with Orfield’s findings.

“With all respect to the judge, he was wrong on the first (libel and conspiracy counts) and partially wrong on the second” for dismissing the counts against the other defendants, Schenk said.

Thorsnes said that he is looking forward to trying the case, which will probably go to trial late next year.

“We are delighted that Miss Golding and Mr. Greenblat will be forced to face a jury of their peers and tell the story as to how these slanderous statements were made,” Thorsnes said.

Golding said she was “thrilled and delighted” with Orfield’s ruling.

“I did not libel or slander her. I know that I did not do anything that was wrong,” Golding said. “But apparently the judge feels that there is some dispute on the material issue of fact in the charge that I slandered Schenk, that’s why it must go to trial.”

Greenblat could not be reached for comment.