Prop. 209 Foes Get Tricky Duking It Out

The letter arrived Sept. 6 and was formally addressed to Ms. Blenda Wilson, president of Cal State University Northridge. It bore the signature of one Kevin Spillane, under a letterhead for something called The Stonecreek Group.

“Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I respectfully request copies of all phone records from the President’s Office dating from January 1995 to present.”

Exactly why, he didn’t say. But, as one of Blenda Wilson’s aides suggested, this Stonecreek couldn’t be a wine label you’d find at Trader Joe’s. Given the controversy of the moment, this smelled like a little fishing expedition to find out what Blenda Wilson knew about the David Duke affair and when she knew it.

This seemed especially likely when, one day later, Ward Connerly, chairman of Yes on Proposition 209, angrily described the CSUN student government’s invitation to the ex-Klansman to debate “affirmative action” as “a conspiracy” to discredit the measure.

A funny thing happened when I did a little fishing of my own. When I called Kevin Spillane and asked him why he’d sent the letter to Wilson’s office, he said, “No comment.” When I sought the identity of Stonecreek’s client in this matter, he said, “No comment.” He would confirm only that Stonecreek is a political consulting firm. (According to one newspaper clip, Stonecreek specializes in “opposition research.”)

Maybe Spillane was just following orders. Still, his secrecy raised the specter of rich irony. What was going on here--a conspiracy to discover whether a conspiracy exists? Was he trying to prove that the African American CSUN president was conspiring to bring one of America’s leading bigots to CSUN? Was this a tale of spy vs. spy?

Perhaps that’s a stretch. Fishing elsewhere, I had better luck. Jennifer Nelson, press secretary for Yes on Proposition 209, acknowledged that the campaign organization chaired by Connerly, a University of California regent, had indeed authorized the query to Wilson. The purpose, Nelson said Friday, “was simply to check out a report we had that she was doing opposition campaign work on state time.”

A few minutes later, CSUN spokeswoman Carmen Ramos Chandler told me that Nelson’s comments confirmed some of the speculation in Wilson’s office about the purpose and source of the letter. As for the suspicions about Wilson’s activities, Chandler said she could give me an unequivocal answer: Although Blenda Wilson has publicly stated she opposes 209, Chandler said, she has not campaigned against it on state time.

Yes, something was definitely smelly about this little fishing expedition.

The good news is that the trolling seems to be over. Wilson’s office on Sept. 13 declined Spillane’s request, citing a legal opinion that those records are exempt from disclosure for various reasons. Newspapers make such requests often; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose--and press your case in court. Both Spillane and Nelson told me they don’t anticipate pursuing this line of inquiry any further.

Perhaps this little retreat is a sign that Yes-on-209 forces have gotten smarter about the David Duke controversy. Perhaps they realize that they should try to regain some of the moral high ground that was lost in a Sept. 7 press conference when, just a day after Spillane sent his letter, Ward Connerly accused unnamed agents of conspiring against the people of California.

Duke’s visit, he declared, “is not some innocent act of little misguided students,” but was “a conspiracy” and “probably one of the sleaziest things that has happened in California political history.”

Considering the history of sleaze in California, that’s quite a charge.

And how did he know this? “We have heard from someone who works on the campus, who opposed this initiative initially, but who knows exactly when the [No-on-209] people have been involved.”

Alas, Connerly has since failed to deliver any proof. Nelson suggested that this putative Deep Throat has retreated to the shadows.

At Cal State Northridge, many people think that the Yes-on-209 camp has lately been more restrained in protesting Wednesday’s debate between Duke and Los Angeles civil rights activist Joe Hicks. Nelson offered assurance that the campaign’s response has been “very consistent from Day One.”

She pointed out that it was the Northridge student government who started the “dirty trickery.” First they mistakenly faxed Connerly an invitation to participate that had been meant for San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, a 209 opponent. That letter noted the planned appearance by Duke. When students sent Connerly another letter, there was no mention of Duke.

Now that certainly sounds like the work of college students engaged in incompetent political mischief.

Nelson provided a chronology of the Duke drama from the Yes-on-209 perspective. The latest indignity, she said, is an obviously bogus letter sent to Ward Connerly supposedly from Duke himself, thanking him for his “words of encouragement” and “financial contribution.” This hoax, Nelson suggests, is further evidence of dirty tricks.

Yes, it sounds like somebody’s trying to yank Ward Connerly’s chain--unless it’s a little disinformation to discredit the No-on-209 side. Stranger things have happened.

Either way, big deal. How does this letter compare to the letter that Blenda Wilson received? That wasn’t a hoax. That was real. We know the source.

Was it a serious inquiry? Was it an effort at intimidation? Would it pass the Ward Connerly sleaze test?

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, CA 91311. Please include a phone number.