D.A. Clears 3 Oceanside Council Members

An eight-month investigation of alleged corruption among three Oceanside City Council members ended Wednesday when San Diego County Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller announced that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

Miller told Council Members Melba Bishop, Sam Williamson and Ben Ramsey that, after 40 interviews and nearly 500 hours of investigation, “we are satisfied that no criminal action is justified and therefore consider the matter closed.”

Claims of bribery, conflict of interest and misuse of public funds were secretly taken to City Manager Ronald Bradley last May by city Public Works Director Glenn Prentice.

Bradley, supported by Police Chief Lee Drummond, hired a private investigator, whose report containing Prentice’s charges was disclosed to the council in August. On Aug. 25, Bradley announced he had asked the district attorney for a full investigation.

Miller, in a five-page letter, mildly criticized Bradley for his handling of the matter and vindicated the three council members. The letter notes that some of the actions by the three may have looked suspicious, but that there clearly was insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution.

Reacting to the findings, Bishop said: “I’ve lived in this town 26 years. I’ve had people disagree with me, and I’ve been controversial from time to time. But, in 26 years, no one has questioned my credibility or integrity. This hit me like a ton of bricks.”

She blamed “City Hall gossip” as the origin of the allegations, and said, emotionally, “I don’t know which of those City Hall gossips will give me my good name back.”

Williamson said that, despite the stigma of the investigation, “the greatest thing about it is the public and my constituents had enough faith to let it proceed without having a recall” election.

Ramsey did not return a phone call, and Prentice was attending a meeting elsewhere and could not be reached for comment.

Prentice alleged that Williamson and Ramsey accepted laundered campaign contributions from garbage-disposal companies, and bribes from one disposal firm, in exchange for their favorable votes on a trash-hauling contract.

The district attorney concluded that suggestions of conflict of interest based on receiving campaign contributions from people doing business with the council were unfounded. “Campaign contributions are not considered income under the Political Reform Act, and do not in and of themselves create a conflict of interest,” he said.

Miller’s office also found insufficient evidence to justify allegations that Bishop had a conflict of interest in her support of the Keys Canyon area as a landfill site. The conflict allegedly existed because she was supposedly a paid consultant to attorney John Patterson, who had financial interests in the Keys Canyon area and in Laidlaw Waste Systems and BFI Corp.

Miller also found no evidence to support the claim that Williamson and Ramsey used public funds to pay for traffic tickets received by their friends.

Investigators learned that city staff members sometimes delivered tickets that had been sent to them, along with the payment from the violator, to the city’s finance department.

“It may have appeared to a casual observer that council staff was submitting tickets for payment out of city funds,” according to Miller, “but there is no evidence this happened.”

He said six parking tickets that were allegedly ordered voided by council members were given to the public services department and voided at Prentice’s direction.

“We were unable to substantiate whether Mr. Prentice had been asked to void any of these citations by council members.”

Another claim, that public funds were used for the Oceanside Centennial Foundation--including work by city employees--without proper accounting, was groundless, Miller concluded.

“A complete review of the records of the foundation, as well as an audit that was conducted by an independent auditor, indicated that there was a full accounting,” he wrote.

Prentice had accused Williamson of having a 300-foot private road built in mid-1987, even though the project had not received council approval or city permits. Miller noted, however, that area businesses paid for the work and that, even without approval, the government took no punitive action against what was a misdemeanor offense. The council also voted to maintain the road, Riverside Drive, after it opened, he added.

Slightly chiding Williamson, Miller wrote that, “although the evidence would strongly suggest that Mr. Williamson was aware the road was going to be graded by the private parties involved and ‘looked the other way,’ there is insufficient evidence that he actually ordered the work to be done, took part in the process or benefited personally in any way from this project.”