Duffy Explains Details of His Outside Income : Politics: Sheriff holds press conference to talk about his jobs as a consultant.

Sheriff John Duffy assembled selected reporters Thursday for a detailed walk-through of his outside consulting work since 1983, asserting that there has been nothing improper in the conduct of his personal finances.

Duffy confirmed that he had listed none of the income from consulting on his annual state disclosure forms, but said he believes none of it was required to be listed.

Duffy, who has announced that he intends to seek reelection next year, also said he already had made more money this year in outside work than in any of the six previous years he has been consulting. But he said he is not worried that voters will perceive that he isn’t spending enough time at his elected position.

In a two-hour meeting, Duffy also produced tax information showing that he and his wife had paid only 6% of their gross income in 1988 in federal and state taxes--or $8,166 out of a joint income of $137,028--but said that was because they took legitimate interest deductions.

Duffy called six newspaper and two television reporters to his office for the meeting in the wake of reports in The Times that he had worked for at least two private companies on law enforcement-related projects but didn’t disclose his outside income.

The San Diego County district attorney’s office announced last week that it had begun a review of state laws concerning what kind of outside income elected officials must publicly disclose and whether Duffy should have reported his outside income.

In addition to that review, one local attorney said last week he would ask the state Fair Political Practices Commission to look into Duffy’s reporting practices, and another said he would ask for an inquiry from the sheriff’s internal affairs division.

Duffy repeated Thursday what he said last week, that he did not report on his annual Statement of Economic Interest forms the outside income he earned over the past six years because he did not have to.

“You think I’m going to fill out forms I don’t need to fill out?” he said. “I mean, I got enough trouble, any elected official, any public official, has forms to fill out up the bazoo.”

Duffy produced a form he had prepared indicating he had earned $8,222 from 1983 through 1988 working as a consultant on projects for the National Institute of Corrections, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and for the private, for-profit firm Koba Associates in Washington.

Duffy was hired by Koba to work on seven consulting projects for the National Institute of Justice, earning $150 a day to review research projects. The money he earned on jail study projects since 1985 with the National Institute of Corrections ranged from $229 a day in 1985 to the current rate of $290 daily, Duffy said.

Since 1983, Duffy said, he has been compensated for 50 days’ work with the two organizations. Before this year, the most he had earned in outside work in any one year was $2,338, in 1985, he said.

Duffy said his tax records indicated the money he earned on National Institute of Justice projects was paid to him by Koba, and income from the National Institute of Corrections studies was paid to him by Gubler & Associates, a Salt Lake City firm.

Nevertheless, he contended he was not obliged to report that money on his disclosure forms because those funds actually were supplied by the federal government, merely passing through the two firms. Taxpayers’ money is not required to be disclosed, he said.

For the same reason, Duffy also said he did not plan to report how much money he ends up earning this year consulting for the two companies.

So far in 1989, Duffy said he was gone on one job in April through Koba, again at $150 a day, for an estimated five days. He also said he had worked at least one day at $290 through Gubler for an NIC meeting in Colorado and would make the same rate with it again this weekend at a conference in San Diego.

Duffy also has been paid $4,000 this year by a third company, Ralph Andersen & Associates in Sacramento, for a consulting job that began late last year and concluded this February, reviewing the management structure of the Arlington, Tex., Police Department.

Although Duffy said he is “confident” he does not have to officially disclose money from the first two companies, he said he does not know whether he will have to list that $4,000 on next year’s form.

The reporting rules require Duffy each year to list income of $250 or more from any source that is located in San Diego County, owns real estate in the county or conducts business in the county.

The Andersen firm contracted with county officials this year to stage a personnel classification seminar at the same time Duffy was working for the company on the Arlington consulting project.

“I hope (the state Fair Political Practices Commission) rules on this one because (Andersen is) not located in S.D. County (and), other than some news report I read about that they once invited the county Personnel Department up to Newport Beach for some seminar, they have not done any business with San Diego County government,” Duffy said Thursday.

If the FPPC rules that he has to report the $4,000, Duffy said, he will abide by that decision.

Duffy said he was not worried that the recent reports about his outside work will hurt his re-election chances next year.

“I think I can make a pretty good case during the campaign that my travels to Washington, D.C., my travels out of the county, many times directly and often indirectly benefited the citizens of San Diego County,” he said.

Duffy stressed that he has listed all of his income with the Internal Revenue Service and the state of California for tax purposes.

He also produced another form he had prepared that indicated he and his wife, Linda, had paid at least $22,000 in taxes from 1984 through 1987. But, in 1988, they paid only the $8,166, he said.

The dramatic difference was because of $84,000 they took in interest deductions, Duffy said. That figure was largely attributable to interest from a construction loan used to build their new house but also included interest from the mortgage on the house, a loan processing fee for the house and interest from the mortgage on their former residence, Duffy said.

Duffy has denounced The Times for its reports on his consulting work and for an earlier article about the amount of time he has spent traveling out of the county. He refused to allow Times reporter Richard A. Serrano, who wrote those articles, to take part in the interview Thursday.