Duffy Changes Campaign-Fund Rules That He May Have Broken

San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy and Assistant Sheriff Jack Drown accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions last year from fellow members of their department, apparently in conflict with a Sheriff’s Department policy prohibiting such contributions.

Duffy this week reversed the longstanding policy barring sheriff’s candidates from within the department from receiving political donations from sworn staff members. He made the change on the eve of the deadline for candidates to file their first round of financial disclosures.

In those disclosure forms, Duffy and Drown list numerous donations from high-ranking members of the Sheriff’s Department last year, including $250 contributions that Duffy and Drown gave each other.

The forms show that Drown collected three-fourths of his $3,650 in campaign money from sworn staff members or their spouses, while Duffy received about 8% of his $25,935 in donations from sworn deputies or their spouses.

Told of the contributions, other candidates for sheriff said Thursday it showed collusion between Duffy and Drown. In December, Duffy announced he was pulling out of the race and endorsed Drown.

The rival candidates contend that Duffy and Drown first ignored their own written policy regarding campaign donations from department members, and then reversed that procedure when they had to declare the money on the campaign forms.

“It doesn’t appear to be illegal,” said ex-San Diego Police Chief Ray Hoobler, one of the candidates in the June primary election for sheriff. “But the conduct certainly is somewhat suspicious as far as a motive.”

“I’m irritated for two reasons,” said sheriff’s Capt. Jim Roache, another candidate. “I was given special instructions to comply with department policy and did not accept or solicit any money from department employees. I have bent over backwards not to involve department employees in this hotly contested political battle.”

Roache added that he has hired an attorney to research whether any campaign laws were broken.

Despite repeated attempts, neither Duffy nor Drown could be reached for comment Thursday. Nor did Janet Houts, the department’s legal adviser, return several phone calls.

Sgt. Bob Takeshta, a department spokesman, said he could not discuss in detail the policy change because it was a political--rather than a departmental--matter.

But he did say it was his understanding that the switch was made only to “clarify” what role sworn staff members can play in political fund raising and to make sure their conduct is “in compliance with applicable government code sections governing political activity.”

Asked whether the policy was reversed to accommodate the money Duffy and Drown had already received from members of the Sheriff’s Department, Takeshta said:

“That’s an unequivocal no. The change was based solely to clarify the rules, and for no other reason.”

Until Tuesday, the department’s manual governing the “rules and conduct for sworn members of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department” included this provision:

“Officers are prohibitted from (any actions to) solicit or knowingly receive from any other officer or employee of the county of San Diego any political assessment, subscription or contribution.”

Sheriff’s officials could not say how long the policy had been in effect, but one source said it had been a policy for more than 10 years.

On Tuesday, that provision of the policy manual was stricken and new language was inserted, allowing sworn Sheriff’s Department employees who are candidates for political office to:

“Communicate through the mail or by other means requests for political funds or contributions to a significant segment of the public which may include officers or employees of the county.”

“However,” the replacement provision adds, “officers shall not solicit political funds or contributions solely from employees of the county of San Diego.”

Takeshta said the change “was just to show that county employees can be solicited for political support as long as they are included with others and not targeted separately,” he said. “And that’s the reason why it was done.”

Wednesday, the day after the policy was switched, was the deadline for sheriff’s candidates to file their first campaign finance disclosure forms. In those forms, the candidates were required to list all significant contributions they received in the six months between July 1 and last Dec. 31.

Duffy was a candidate for re-election through last fall and therefore was required to file a disclosure form. He announced Dec. 11 that he was withdrawing from the race, after intense media coverage about his management style. On the same day that he told reporters he was quitting the race, Drown announced his intention to run.

Drown’s disclosure form states that he received $3,650 in contributions. That amount includes $2,700 in 12 individual donations made by sworn members of the Sheriff’s Department or their spouses.

Those who gave Drown the maximum amount of $250 are Duffy and his wife, Linda; Assistant Sheriff Richard W. Reed and his wife, Pamela; Capt. James Marmack, who supervises the Vista jail; Lt. Alan Truitt; Sgt. Bill Southwell and his wife, Susan; and Sgt. Debra Hanlon and her husband, John.

Lt. Ernest Klevesahl and Sgt. Frank Nunez gave $100 each to Drown.

Duffy, meanwhile, disclosed that he received $25,935 in donations. That amount includes $2,000 in eight individual contributions made by sworn members of the Sheriff’s Department or their spouses.

Those contributors, all of whom gave the maximum donation of $250, are Undersheriff Richard E. Sandberg; assistant sheriffs Drown, Reed and Charles K. Wigginton; Capt. Alan Fulmer, the department’s former chief spokesman who now supervises the Vista station; and Lt. Liz Foster, who took Fulmer’s job as department spokesperson.

Duffy and his wife also contributed $250 each to his campaign, as did Janet Houts, the sheriff’s legal adviser, and her husband, attorney John Houts.

Roache said he was upset that Drown skirted the policy provisions regarding money from staff members, while he as a sheriff’s captain was forced to abide by the code of conduct. He also suggested that the policy reversal--timed on the eve of the filing deadline--indicated that Drown and Duffy were attempting to cover their tracks.

“It’s not a coincidence that the policy change was distributed to department employees the day before the filing deadline,” Roache said. “And obviously, up until then, it appears Mr. Drown and Mr. Duffy both were violating that policy.”

Everett Bobbitt, a San Diego attorney who successfully sued Duffy to overturn another department provision that had prohibited Roache from running for sheriff, has been retained by Roache again, this time to research the legal implications of how the money from within the Sheriff’s Department was raised.

Bobbitt, who donated $250 to Roache’s campaign, said he plans to lodge a complaint with the County Board of Supervisors and also may file a lawsuit challenging Drown’s and Duffy’s rights to retain that money.

Vince Jimno, a sheriff’s candidate who is on leave from his job as police chief in Escondido, said he believed it was simply a “policy of convenience” for Duffy to change the provision regarding department employees and political donations.

Jimno’s disclosure form states that he raised $7,789, most of it from individuals living or working in North County.

Roache reported contributions of $6,880, including donations from some officials within the San Diego school system, where Roache serves as an elected board member.

Hoobler’s disclosure form had not been filed with the registrar of voters by late Thursday afternoon. But the candidate said he raised a little more than $10,000 during the filing period.