Duffy Calls Failure to List $36,000 in Loans an Oversight

Sheriff John Duffy, claiming that his failure to disclose $36,000 in loans he received last year was an oversight, has filed an amended Statement of Economic Interests naming the three close supporters who provided the money.

The amended statement was filed Monday afternoon with the clerk of the Board of Supervisors after a reporter for the San Diego Reader newspaper questioned why Duffy had not listed the $36,000 loan that he and Sheriff’s Lt. John Tenwolde used to pay opponents’ attorneys fees after losing a lawsuit. It lists William Cowling II, Charles Cono and the late Arthur Bloom--all members of the San Diego County Honorary Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.--as the sources of the loan.

“I forgot, that’s all,” Duffy said in an interview on Friday. “It never even entered my mind. I’ve never even had a loan that I’ve had to report before.” Duffy and Tenwolde incurred the debt as a result of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU accusing Duffy of misusing his office by having on-duty deputies distribute postcards as part of the 1985 campaign to remove former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird from the state Supreme Court.

Duffy could be fined up to $2,000 if the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission receives a complaint and determines that he willfully tried to hide the loans. State law also appears to indicate that Duffy could be civilly liable for up to $36,000 if Dist. Atty. Ed Miller or any other county resident files an action against him.

Steve Casey, Miller’s spokesman, said the district attorney’s office will begin an investigation next week into whether civil or criminal statutes were violated.

It also appears that Duffy failed to disclose income from the sale of his Pacific Beach condominium last year, the proceeds of which were invested in the new Scripps Ranch home that Duffy built for himself. A spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission said Friday that Duffy should have listed the income on his 1988 disclosure statement.

Duffy said that Tenwolde has filed suit against the county demanding that it repay the $33,796 that was paid to ACLU lawyers and staunchly defended that position Friday. County attorneys could not be reached to confirm the suit.

“I insisted I want to see this thing litigated,” said Duffy, who also would be repaid if Tenwolde wins his lawsuit. “The county should not be able to get out from under this just because some jackass named (County Counsel Lloyd) Harmon doesn’t think they have to pay.”

Duffy also vowed that he will never pay back the loan with his own money, insisting that “hundreds” of supporters across the state have offered to pay it for him. Duffy claimed that he has turned them down, and actually returned unsolicited donations because he believes the county should pay the attorney’s fees.

“Other people will pay it back” if Tenwolde loses the lawsuit, Duffy said. “You’re goddamn right, it’s not going to come out of my pocket.

“When the time comes, there will be a fund-raiser of some kind . . . ,” he added. “There will be a giant Bird roast--buy tickets, come down and pay it off.”

In his amended filing, Duffy listed the three loans as between $1,000 and $10,000 despite the fact that the three men loaned $12,000 each. Duffy explained that, since the loans were to both himself and Tenwolde, he considered himself liable for $6,000 to each man.

Duffy will be forced to refile the amended statement because an assistant who filled out the forms listed all three loans as “repaid.” In fact, Duffy said, he has no intention of repaying the money until there is a decision in the Tenwolde lawsuit or unless Cowling and Cono demand the money when the notes come due.

Duffy said he may be able to negotiate an extension of the loans, which are due in July.

In the original and amended Economic Interests statements, there is no mention of the Pacific Beach condominium that Duffy said he sold when he moved into a house he had built in Scripps Ranch. Duffy said he was not required to list the sale because he received no capital gain after plowing the proceeds into his new home.

But Sandra Michioku, a spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission, said state law required Duffy to list the condominium sale proceeds, even though it came from the sale of his primary residence. Elected officials do not have to list primary residences among their assets.

“You would have to report the source of income and the amount,” Michioku said.

Duffy listed the vacant piece of Scripps Ranch property on his 1985, 1986 and 1987 disclosure statements, but left it off his 1988 statement when it became his primary residence. Michioku and Kathryn Nelson, clerk of the county Board of Supervisors, confirmed that Duffy acted legally in leaving the property off his last Economic Interests statement.