Council-Race Foes Trade Sharp Barbs During Debate

Sharpening their distinctions for voters, San Diego City Councilman Bruce Henderson and challenger Valerie Stallings caustically attacked each other’s politics and personality Friday in a debate that saw the two 6th District candidates agree on little other than the fact they they disagree on much.

In their first forum since Stallings’ upset first-place finish in last month’s primary, Stallings described Henderson as “an obstructionist . . . whose whole approach is to just say no” and criticized his continued refusal to release his income tax returns, as she has done with hers.

Henderson, meanwhile, characterized Stallings as “a tax-and-spend liberal” whose vagueness throughout the campaign has left voters unsure of “whether she has a vision for the future and knows how to get there.” He also willingly accepted Stallings’ description of him as “Mister No,” adding: “I say ‘no’ with a purpose: saving money and finding a better alternative.”

Speaking before the Institute for Continued Learning at UC San Diego, the two candidates outlined their positions on myriad issues ranging from sewage and crime to San Diego’s business environment and the city budget.

However, both also spent considerable time sniping at each other during the nearly two-hour debate, questioning each other’s record, style and priorities.

Henderson, for example, noted that during his 1987 campaign, he released numerous position papers to help voters better understand his preferred approach to major city issues. In contrast, Stallings--whose campaign has been focused primarily on criticism of the incumbent’s performance--”hasn’t even provided us with one paragraph that lays out her position on these important issues,” Henderson said.

“I have a vision for the future,” Henderson said, speaking in generalities about crime reduction, job creation, educational quality and a “lean” government. “I know the nuts and bolts that will get us step by step, without new taxes, to that vision. . . . I’m not sure my opponent even has a vision.”

Professing to have “a clear vision,” Stallings proceeded to outline it in only the broadest of terms, saying that she would seek to “establish priorities,” headed by an increase in the ratio of police officers to residents.

In seeking to rebut Henderson’s repeated characterization of her as a “tax-and-spend liberal”--a pejorative she termed “a fabrication of his own mind”--Stallings also parried his self-description as a “fiscal conservative” by noting that she outpolled him in the primary despite having been outspent more than 4 to 1.

“My opponent spent about $125,000 . . . and I spent less than $30,000,” Stallings said. “All of my bills were paid within two days of the election. You tell me who’s fiscally conservative.”

At the debate, Henderson again rejected Stallings’ challenge to release his federal income tax returns, as she did two weeks ago in raising questions about whether his holdings pose conflicts of interest.

Financial disclosure reports that he and other city officials are required to file annually, Henderson noted, disclose all of his assets, though their value is listed only within broad price ranges that make it impossible to assess their total worth.

“I’ve gone the extra mile on disclosure--I’ve listed things that don’t have to be listed,” Henderson said. “But, if people want to know my precise net worth, then I stand on my right of privacy. That has nothing to do with conflict of interest. I’m not at all interested in having people determine to the dollar what my net worth is. That’s nobody’s business. Period.”

Though acknowledging being “not sure” whether Henderson’s tax returns would help voters make a more informed choice in their Nov. 5 runoff, Stallings argued that the incumbent’s insistence on preserving his privacy runs counter to the very nature of public service.

“When you become a public official . . . you waive certain rights,” Stallings said. “The public has the right to know certain things. It’s just kind of the principle of openness that I’m willing to abide by.”