We find yesterday's statement by City Attorney Casey Gwinn and comments by the Mayor and Councilmembers in the San Diego Union-Tribune unfortunate, misleading to the public and disingenuous. Unlike our elected politicians, we are happy to explain why we think this is so and, once again, we call for the Mayor to "EXPLAIN" the City's position.

• The Chargers did not organize the business and labor communities against the City. Quite frankly, it was the actions of the City and behavior of Councilmembers that caused business and labor to come together in a coalition.
   
• The City was not close to a deal with the Chargers as they claim, if there is a question about that, contact the Chargers and get a clarification.
   
• Mr. Gwinn's complaint that the City has "attempted to negotiate in good faith", and, that City officials are "extremely disappointed" that the Chargers have broken the agreement that both sides would refrain from publicly discussing the matter is disingenuous at best. At the August recess, we had Councilmembers talking to the press giving colorful quotes such as "it doesn't pass the laugh test" and "we are not going to make rich people richer at taxpayer expense". Then, they declined to explain what that means because they were "in closed session". That is neither "good faith" nor "keeping the discussions private".
   
• Mr. Gwinn's assertions that he is "deeply troubled" that business and labor leaders interjected themselves into the debate last week and that "Fabiani's decision to discuss publicly the private talks prompted him to educate the public" are disingenuous for the following reasons.
   
  1. Gwinn claims that the Chargers are trying to get out of their contract that runs until 2020. However, he does not mention (educate the public) that there is an exit clause that has been "triggered" and that there are four more exit clauses in the contract leading up to 2020. The Chargers are exercising their rights under the contract.
      
  2. Gwinn said the City continues to oppose taking the trigger issue to binding arbitration because it would not be in the best interests of the taxpayers to "compromise our legal position." Again, as taxpayers and business people, we think a reasonable explanation is in order since it hasn't compromised our legal position the other times it has been agreed to. Moreover, Gwinn claims the "trigger" issue is not the sticking point, it is the exit fee. So, we feel an explanation is in order as to why they would agree to binding arbitration on the primary issue, but, not a secondary issue. Especially since that issue may be the one that gets this deal done. We feel we have a right to understand how this makes sense.
      
  3. Gwinn said the City has not been able to verify the Chargers' claim about the trigger. Yet, City staff has had access to the books since this process began. They have been to Charger headquarters to study them, yet, they refuse to acknowledge this is the case. If the City cannot figure it out, there are many accounting firms in town that can be engaged to do the job for them.
      
  4. Mayor Dick Murphy said the City should not agree to binding arbitration on the trigger because it would mean forfeiting a jury trial and a right to appeal the decision. It also would let the Chargers avoid releasing financial documents that would show whether the trigger provision has been met, he said. First, the same rules of discovery and evidence would apply in binding arbitration, so, we think the Mayor should explain why he thinks the Chargers would not have to provide the same information. Second, a jury trial, with the ticket guarantee in place, could cost the City $75 million to $100 million.
      
  5. And, that brings us to the most egregious of all decisions with regard to this issue. The Mayor and City Council know that a jury trial would be conducted with the ticket guarantee in place. They know full well that the potential cost to the City is enormous, yet, they do not "educate" the public on this issue. Thus, Mr. Gwinn's claim of educating the public is disingenuous since this political bombshell is skillfully avoided in all discussions coming out of City Hall. Why?

We have asked repeatedly for explanations as to why it is in the best financial interests of the City (as the Mayor claims) to pursue litigation with this onerous cost hanging over our heads. We again repeat that call for an explanation today!

This coalition of business and labor is a direct result of the misinformation coming out of City Hall due to continued closed session meetings conducted there. We call for open meetings and a spirited public debate in lieu of 10-second political sound bites that clearly do not provide the public with reasonable information.

###

- Return to News Releases -