D.A. Will Review Income Disclosure Law in Wake of Duffy Revelations

The San Diego County district attorney’s office announced Thursday that it is reviewing state laws concerning what kind of outside income elected officials must publicly disclose and then will decide if it should investigate whether Sheriff John Duffy should have reported his work as a private consultant.

The review by the district attorney’s Special Operations Division is the third to be opened or requested this week, after revelations that Duffy has earned income as a private consultant and never listed those funds on his annual Statement of Economic Interest forms.

Steve Casey, a spokesman in the district attorney’s office, said that Rodger Overholser, a deputy prosecutor who formerly worked for the state Fair Political Practices Commission, is researching state law to determine exactly what types and amounts of income elected officials are legally required to disclose. He then will review whether Duffy has followed those requirements.

When the legal research is completed, probably by next week, Overholser will make a recommendation to Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller on whether their office should proceed with a criminal investigation, Casey said.

“Today, the D.A. determined that we should review the law as it pertains to what income and what activities are reportable and under what circumstances,” Casey said.

“He has directed the attorney who handles such matters to do that,” Casey said. “So that’s under way. And, once he does that, we’ll have further discussions and a decision will be made as to whether a full investigation is warranted.”

The review is prompted by revelations this week that Duffy has worked for two private, for-profit companies as a consultant on law enforcement issues. He was paid $150 a day, plus reimbursement for travel, meals and lodging, by one company based in Washington. And Duffy has said that he was paid $500 a day by a second firm to review the management of the Arlington, Tex., Police Department.

Duffy, questioned Thursday by reporters about his outside consulting work, said he has listed all the income with the Internal Revenue Service and the state of California for tax purposes.

He has maintained that he was not obligated to include the income on his annual Statement of Economic Interest forms.

He said Thursday that one of the consulting jobs, for which he was hired by Koba Associates in Washington to review research projects for the National Institute of Justice, was actually taxpayers’ money and therefore not subject to being disclosed.

“All that money came from the U.S. government,” he said. “And there is no question that that’s not required to be disclosed.”

But officials from Koba and the national institute have said that the institute contracted to hire Koba--a private company--which in turn paid Duffy.

The sheriff has also said this week that he worked as a consultant for the National Institute of Corrections, but he has not disclosed the amount of income he has received from that organization.

“I just went over my income tax returns last night, back to 1984 through 1988,” he said, referring to his work involving the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute of Corrections.

Totaling up his fees, along with meeting and per-diem expenses, he said: “It amounts to point zero zero nine nine of my total income for the same period. That’s hardly a part-time job.”

Duffy said that, for those two institutes, he worked nine days in 1984, 11 days each in 1985 and 1986, and four so far this year.

Two officials with the National Institute of Justice told The Times that Duffy was in fact hired by Koba to work on a National Institute of Justice project in 1987. They said the consulting work dealt with reviewing electronic jail monitoring research during a peer review panel held in San Diego, at which they said Duffy was host.

The sheriff has not discussed the circumstances surrounding his other outside consulting job, working for the Ralph Andersen & Associates firm to study the Arlington, Tex., Police Department.

In addition to the district attorney’s review, two other investigations have been requested. A local attorney has asked for a investigation by the FPPC. A second attorney has asked the Sheriff’s Department’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate Duffy’s apparent inconsistent statements in saying earlier this year that he did not have a second job.

“I haven’t been untruthful,” Duffy said Thursday. “That’s the bottom line. And, until someone can make something different out of that, we’ll see what happens.”