Lee Burdick and Dan Coffey, democratic candidates for San Diego city attorney, criticized Mike Aguirre’s leadership as city attorney, his relations with media and his involvement with city employee pension funds, at a San Diego Democratic Club forum last week at the Joyce Beers Community Center. Aguirre responded by defending and justifying his tenure.

“Tonight you’re going to hear a lot of contradictory information about Aguirre. I want you to set yourself apart from that debate and agree that he has divided us,” said Burdick.

“I’m hoping there is a possibility to put a real Democrat in the office who will respect other people and follow the law,” said Coffey, implying Aguirre has broken the law.

One of the forum’s first questions was what role the city attorney should have in creating policy.

The city attorney’s role has two parts, said Burdick.

“When the city attorney is presented with an issue by their client … it is their duty to inform their clients, not the press, whether that illegality exists and how to avoid it,” said Burdick.

Coffey concurred, adding, “There are things that can be suggested by the city attorney that would be to the benefit of the public. … It’s not for the city attorney to set policy, and that’s a big difference. What we have currently is setting policy.”

Aguirre countered by accusing the city of violating the law. “[T]he typical role of the attorney’s office is not to initiate policy. … But let me tell you what is also true: Violating the law is not a policy choice.”

Jeri Dilno, SDDC’s vice president of political action, then read member-written questions from note cards.

One question focused on Aguirre’s reaction to the city hiring outside legal advice.

“What would you do if a city agency rejects your advice and hires an outside attorney to give them the opinion they want?” an audience member asked.

“Even though it’s a violation of Charter Section 40, I don’t want the city to be jeopardized ever in court because of a squabble between the city attorney and the mayor or the city council,” said Aguirre.

Burdick and Coffey countered by saying that City Charter Section 40 does not prohibit the city from hiring outside council.

“Check it yourself. What it says is that the city attorney should be the primary legal adviser to the city council and the city manager. … It does not say that the city attorney should be the only legal adviser,” said Burdick.

“There was a time when the administration spent about $5 million on outside council. … Currently, over the last three years we’ve spent over $90 million on outside council because of all the conflicts of interest,” said Coffey.

Questions on media relations were sarcastic, reflecting recent criticisms of Aguirre’s behavior with local media.

“If you don’t have a press conference to announce a problem, how will the people find out how to react?” asked Dilno.

“First of all, believe it or not, but every time we solve a problem we don’t have a press conference,” said Aguirre.

Burdick and Coffey, however, continued to emphasize the public’s need and right to know.

“Each and every one of you have the right to know exactly what the city council is discussing with their attorney in closed session,” said Burdick.

“The public should be informed as necessary as to what the true facts are, and I will be glad to have the press fully informed about what the city attorney’s office is doing,” said Coffey.

With regard to city pensions, Coffey emphasized discussion over litigation.

“In my estimation, we’re going to solve any problems with respect to the pension issue. It’s going to be through very good discussions with people that can be trusted and their work. It’s not going to be done through litigation in the court rooms, enough with all of that,” said Coffey.

Burdick argued that the current contract with city employees is legal.

“Looking back on those labor agreements … what we do know is that they’re not illegal. And that means the city is currently contractually bound to provide those benefits until those terms are renegotiated. … A contract is a contract,” said Burdick.

But Aguirre said the contract is against the law.

“An illegal contract is not an enforceable contract….The benefits that were created that are under attack were created illegally. … I have always been pro-union…, [but] I am not in favor of union leaders ripping off their membership.”

Audience members were mixed in their reactions to the forum.

“[Burdick] really understood what the role of the city attorney was. Coffey did too, but she was a little bit more polished,” said Cherry Pasanen, a Linda Vista resident.

Some were quite passionate about their disappointment with Aguirre.

“I know I don’t want Mike Aguirre, because he’s made very bad decisions,” said Descanso resident Stan Louise, while Bob Cronk, resident of Scripps Ranch and member of the Municipal Employee’s Association, said, “Since he’s been in office, he’s done everything in his power to take away our [city employee] benefits…. It’s been a nightmare for everybody.”

The SDDC, which, after the forum, held a vote on whether to endorse a candidate for city attorney, decided to endorse at a later time. Twenty-eight voted in favor of endorsing a candidate and 43 were opposed.