Politics in Escondido : D.A. Dismisses Claims of Election Violations

Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller, saying his office will not become embroiled in political battles, Thursday dismissed accusations that three members of the Escondido City Council violated their city’s election financing laws--charges that opponents believed would have removed them from office.

In a three-page letter to the Escondido Common Sense Committee, Miller wrote that, although “technically, there may have been misreporting as alleged,” there was “insufficient evidence to prove willful intent to violate the law. Likewise, the alleged misreporting is not so egregious to justify criminal prosecution.”

After explaining his office’s investigation into the charges, Miller closed:

“Although regrettable, inadvertent errors are to be expected and will not give rise to criminal prosecution by this office. Under no circumstances will we permit (minor errors) made in good faith attempts to comply with highly technical reporting requirements to be transformed from the field of a purely political battle to the foundation of a serious criminal inquiry.”

The committee, which serves as a City Hall watchdog group, had charged, among other things, that veteran Councilman Jerry Harmon last year loaned two fellow council members amounts of more than the $250 allowed under city statutes, and that council members Kris Murphy and Carla DeDominicis, who received the loans in advance of their election, failed to pay back the money to Harmon within the 60-day period specified in city election statutes. Violation of that code section called for removal from office.

Committee secretary Patricia (P.K.) Walker, herself an unsuccessful council candidate last year, said Thursday she faulted Miller’s findings and feared that his attitude toward the charges gives notice to candidates for public office that they don’t have to follow the letter of the law.

“There’s a city code that says they can’t do the things they did. But he (Miller) is saying, OK, anything goes because people are incapable of understanding the codes,” Walker said.

The committee will not pursue the matter further, Walker said, “although I hope someone else will pursue it. Why do we have election codes if they’re not going to be enforced?”

For his part, Harmon said he was not only satisfied by Miller’s findings but thought it was “great that the message (by Miller) is more strongly worded than I had hoped for.”

At issue was the manner in which Harmon bought a newspaper advertisement on behalf of himself and council candidates DeDominicis and Murphy in advance of last year’s municipal election when they won office. DeDominicis and Murphy later repaid Harmon $1,424 and $1,739, respectively, and those transactions were shown on their finance reports.

But Walker’s group contends that Harmon essentially loaned the two candidates the money, in a sum greater than allowed by city code, and that he was repaid after the deadline had passed.

Insufficient Evidence

Miller found that, although there may have been a technical violation, “since the amounts, sources and recipients of the monies were in fact reported on the candidates’ disclosure statements, there is insufficient evidence to prove willful intent to violate the law.”

Miller noted that the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating the same charges. The FPPC has yet to conclude its review, a spokesman said.

Miller also dismissed accusations that Murphy and Harmon improperly reported in-kind donations in the form of campaign office space, as well as other, unspecified charges. “Generally, these allegations are broad in scope and supported only by rumor and speculation,” Miller wrote Walker. “Moreover, such allegations that may be supported in fact are (minor) in character and do not justify criminal action.”

Finally, Miller said he found no evidence to support the charge that the City Council violated the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act.