Ethics complaint filed against Councilmember Lorie Zapf and immediately dismissed

UPDATED: As quickly as the complaint was filed, it has been dismissed. Here's the pdf of the letter from Stacey Fulhorst, executive director of the San Diego Ethics Commission.

***

A community activist has filed a formal complaint against San Diego City Councilmember Lorie Zapf with the city's Ethics Commission, alleging she improperly interfered with a redistricting software contract.

Download the complaint as pdf here (cover page redacted for privacy).

The complaint was filed by Ian Trowbridge a day after the city-controlled San Diego Data Processing Center turned down a contract worth up to $90,000 to help the city's Redistricting Commission redraw the electoral lines based on new census data. The Ethics Commission has 30 days to conduct a preliminary review of the complaint.

As voiceofsandiego.org's Adrian Florido reported, the commission planned to award the project to SDPCC, a nonprofit created by the city that holds the city's IT contract, despite findings that it did not meet several requirements of the project.

Florido reported that Zapf sent a memo (download) to City Attorney Jan Goldsmith asking his office to review whether there would be any potential conflicts of interest. Her concern, according to Florido, was that because the City Council will soon be asked to vote on continuing SDDPC's city contract for IT,  SDDPC should not have the opportunity to affect who sits on the council. 

Deputy City Attorney Sharon Spivak's response on May 4 determined that Zapf was wholly off base.

"Your memorandum appears to suggest that City departments should not provide staff or services to the Redistricting Commission because the City Council approves their budgets and operations," Spivak writes. "This suggestion contradicts the clear language of the City Charter. The Charter not only contemplates, but directs, the use of City resources to staff the Redistricting Commission 'to the extent possible.'"

Spivak adds, "The fact that the City's future information technology needs are subject to competitive bidding is not enough to disqualify SDDPC or any other City contractor or vendor from providing services to the Commission. Accordingly, we see no legal impediment to the Redistricting Commission's use of SDDPC for support services and mapping work."

Spivak also said the City Attorney cannot get involved in the Redistricting Commission's policy decisions or "deliver an opinion on possible alternatives," as Zapf requested. The memorandum emphasized that there is "to be no role for the City Council in the redistricting process" except for appropriating funds.

However, the next day, May 5, Zapf sent a memorandum to the Redistricting Commission and Reed Vickerman, chairman of the SDDPC Board of Directors, requesting the contract not go forward. According to a Zapf spokesperson, SDDPC had already taken itself out of the running by the time the letter was delivered. Similarly, Zapf's office had not reviewed the City Attorney memo before submitting the letter.

In his signed complaint, Trowbridge accuses Zapf of violating three different codes, including the section that lays out the "Misuse of City Position or Resources."

He says that the city's charter explicitly grants the Commission an autonomous role in its contracting decisions, a point that was reinforced in the city attorney's memo. By writing the May 5 letter and criticizing the deal in the press, Trowbridge alleges Zapf was "improperly interfering with the Redistricting Commission's ability to hire a consultant of their choice." He also says it was "frivolous" for Zapf to request a City Attorney opinion on the matter, akin to "thinly veiled effort to intimidate" the SDDPC.

"Faced with the barrage of political threats from Zapf, an hour before the Redistricting Commission meeting on May 5, 2011 DPC informed Chief of Staff, Midori Wong by phone, they could not be considered in any role as a consultant and Zapf achieved her illegal goal," Trowbridge writes in the complaint.

To counter Trowbridge, Zapf office provided a copy of an email from Larry Morgan, executive director of the SDDPC, dated the evening of May 5, in which he "agrees" with her position and explains acknowledges that SDDPC recused itself "to avoid the very issues that were raised." Zapf's office says Trowbridge's complaint is "completely unfounded" and meritless.

Ultimately, the San Diego Data Processing Corporation agreed with our concerns and withdrew from bidding on the redistricting support services before receiving our second memo. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association also agreed with Councilwoman Zapf’s concerns and released a press statement, followed by public testimony on the issue.

Councilwoman Zapf is extremely confident the ethics commission will promptly agree with her that this compliant is completely unfounded and without any merit.

Councilwoman Zapf was elected by voters to act as a fiscal and ethical watchdog at City Hall. It is her job to ask the tough questions to protect the taxpayers. Not asking the tough questions, and raising concerns about massive City contracts (IT outsourcing) is one of the ways our City got into the fiscal mess it is in today.

Perhaps the situation is best summarized by Councilwoman Zapf’s initial reaction, “Since when is exercising my fiduciary responsibility to protect the taxpayers an ethics violation?”