Hartley Says He’ll Pay to Fix His Office, but Bernhardt Can’t Backtrack

Describing the estimated $50,000 cost of remodeling his City Hall office as “offensively high,” San Diego City Councilman John Hartley on Thursday canceled most of the planned renovation and pledged to give up a recently approved salary increase to pay for work already done.

Hartley, conceding that he has received many constituent complaints about the politically sensitive subject, said he has scrapped plans to install $33,000 worth of work stations--identical to those used in some other council suites--in his office, and instead will use less expensive portable dividers to separate his staffers’ desks. He also has postponed and may eventually cancel $6,100 in wallpaper work, pending resolution of cost questions about that part of the proposed renovation.

“I approached the renovation with the objective of providing better, more efficient service to my constituents,” Hartley said at a news conference in his office. “(But) at a time when we are being asked to cut back on important city programs and impose new taxes and fees on San Diego taxpayers, I can’t, in good conscience, proceed with the renovation . . . as was originally planned.”

Though Hartley’s action may help him score points with his 3rd District constituents, it had exactly the opposite effect on the other council freshman in the midst of an office renovation project, Linda Bernhardt.

Like Hartley, Bernhardt, at the invitation of City Manager John Lockwood, decided to remodel her office. Clearly unhappy over being left alone in an undesirable political spotlight, Bernhardt, whose $32,450 renovation is nearing completion, dismissed Hartley’s decision as “a cheap political ploy.”

“All he’s done is prolong a very agonizing, painful situation,” the 5th District councilwoman said. “The negative (publicity) is out there already--all you can do is move on. John should have done what I did--reach out to my constituents to articulate the realities and explain why this is needed. This office is no palace now, and it won’t be when the work’s done.”

Hartley stressed that it was not his intent to “put heat” on Bernhardt. The council approved nearly $300,000 in staff and office expenses last month, though Hartley’s decision, combined with a $20,000 reduction in the original estimate for Bernhardt’s office renovation--which Bernhardt aide Chris Crotty noted “is too far along to stop . . . even if we wanted to”--may reduce the final price tag to about $250,000.

Newly elected council members usually renovate their offices to satisfy their needs and taste, often moving or eliminating walls and choosing new furnishings. From that perspective, the renovations envisioned by Hartley and Bernhardt--who inherited offices with peeling wallpaper, torn rugs and other aesthetic shortcomings--were simply an accepted part of turnover on the council.

“I feel badly that two newly elected officials are getting beat up over something we consider routine,” Lockwood said. “This has been going on for decades. I’m not sure why it’s become such a cause celebre this time.”

One explanation for the heightened scrutiny is that the proposed office renovations overlapped with the council’s contemplation of wide-ranging cutbacks in city services and tens of millions of dollars in potential taxes. Lockwood exacerbated the controversy when he originally told the council that, in order to pay for the office renovations, council staff additions and other requests, a new police substation would have to be delayed or other existing city services cut.

Hartley said the other major factor that figured in his decision to scale down his office remodeling was his dismay over the projected cost, which ranged from $49,150 to $57,800 in two recent estimates.

But about $7,000 worth of work has already been done, much of it stemming from reconfiguration of office walls. To pay for that work, Hartley said he will forgo a pay raise that the council approved last month, which will increase each member’s annual salary from the current $45,000 to $47,000 on July 1 and to $49,000 in July, 1991.

“I sought election to this office knowing what the salary was, and I’m prepared to live with it for the next four years,” Hartley said. Even if the final remodeling bill for his office is less than the total pay raise, Hartley said, he will return the difference to the city treasury.

Hartley said he is concerned that similar city work may be routinely performed at inflated costs and called for an investigation of city purchasing and construction practices.