San Diego Mayor Denies Stadium Payoff

Dist. Atty. Paul Pfingst on Thursday pledged a thorough review of the county grand jury’s unprecedented request to put Mayor Susan Golding on trial on a civil charge of malfeasance stemming from her efforts to win approval for a downtown ballpark.

If Pfingst decides the grand jury’s allegation does not merit a trial, he could end the legal issue--if not the ballpark controversy--by notifying the presiding judge of the Superior Court.

But if he decides to put Golding on trial, the two-term Republican and onetime senatorial hopeful could be removed from office.

The grand jury accused Golding of buying the endorsement of the politically influential Hotel-Motel Assn. for Proposition C, the 1998 measure authorizing construction of a $411-million downtown baseball stadium for the Padres. Golding did that, the grand jury alleged, by promising the group an additional $4 million in public money for its marketing efforts.

At a news conference Thursday, Golding called the charge groundless, and City Council members and Hotel-Motel officials have also issued denials. Golding or her attorney must appear in Superior Court on July 8 to answer the accusation.

In a recent report, the grand jury hinted at a quid pro quo by noting a large number of phone calls and meetings between city officials and the Hotel-Motel Assn. just before the group endorsed Proposition C and before the association got a boost in public funding.

There are, however, other documents, including transcripts of testimony, that have not been made public.

Pfingst will review those documents before making his decision. Although he is a fellow Republican, Pfingst has no political alignment with the mayor and the two are not considered close friends or allies.

Voters approved Proposition C by a 60-40 margin after an aggressive campaign financed largely by the owners of the Padres, John Moores and Larry Lucchino.

The grand jury invoked a little-used part of state law that allows it to make a civil “accusation of misconduct” in office against any public official. If the charge is considered valid by the district attorney, the official is entitled to a trial.

The law has only been used in a handful of cases in recent decades in California, and more often than not, the county district attorney has decided that the case did not merit prosecution. The San Diego jury took its action without consulting Pfingst or asking his legal advice.

What makes the grand jury’s case difficult, Pfingst said, is that there is no legal definition of what constitutes malfeasance in office.

“One person’s malfeasance in office is another person’s strong mayoral leadership,” he said. On the ballpark issue, Pfingst said, what one person might consider malfeasance, another might believe is reasonable political compromise.

The sometimes politically divided City Council appeared united in support of Golding and in criticism of the grand jury. Deputy Mayor Byron Wear said the jury’s report is “filled with innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations.”

The council plans to authorize the hiring of prominent San Diego attorney John Wertz to represent Golding during Pfingst’s review, and if necessary, during a trial. Wertz plans to attack the grand jury accusation as a misuse of the state statute and unsupported by facts.

“The mayor and I are confident that after the D.A. reviews the issue, he will decide this action by the grand jury is off base and without merit,” Wertz said. “We plan to point out the deficiencies of this report. This is a grand jury run amok.”

But Diane Dixon, a leader in the campaign to block Proposition C, hailed the grand jury report as a way to continue probing the political methods used to win approval for the project.

The grand jury, a 19-member body whose members are volunteers, has the power of subpoena, which it used to compel council members to testify in secret session. The chairman of this year’s jury is a retired Army intelligence officer.

Some members of the Hotel-Motel Assn. had been skeptical about the ballpark project, which is to be built largely through taxes on hotel and motel customers.

The jury suggests that the group decided to support Proposition C only after Golding promised to increase funds for marketing San Diego as a tourist site. The head of the group has denied that accusation.

The Hotel-Motel Assn. receives funds from the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, which in turn is partly funded by the city.

A secondary issue on the grand jury’s brief against Golding involves alleged malfeasance for disbanding a city advisory commission on utility issues.