The San Diego Democratic Club illustrated Thursday why its endorsements have become increasingly irrelevant to our community and the principles of the Democratic Party.

The club voted to support for city attorney City Council President Scott Peters, who the Kroll Report cited as a negligent figure in the city’s pension crisis. According to the report, Peters provided inaccurate information on the city’s financial disclosures and knowingly withheld other information.

What was perhaps most troubling during the hour-long SDDC forum was Peters indecision whether he’d support incumbent Michael Aguirre if Aguirre wins in the June primary. Peters flip flopped, before settling in self-congratulatory middle ground: he doesn’t think much about losing in June, he said.

The prospect, though, that Peters would spite his Democratic rival, Aguirre, and cast a vote for a Republican opponent is indicative of Peters' commitment to principle. Aguirre, who also said he’s confident he’ll win in June, in contrast, said while he may disagree with his Democratic contenders, he will vote along party lines regardless of the outcome in June.

And that speaks volumes of the two candidates.

Love him or hate him, Aguirre is invested in the public’s interest; in the best interest of the City of San Diego; and in upholding the principles of fair, transparent government and Democratic ideals.

His lawsuits targeting city employee pensions have made him an unpopular figure with labor unions, but Aguirre is tasked with cleaning up his predecessor’s mess – a mess made, in part, by Peters and the San Diego City Council.

In a January 2007 court decision regarding city employees’ pension benefits, the court noted “the excellent presentation of the case at trial by the city,” and said “previous inconsistent positions taken by the City before the filing of the cross-complaint raise significant obstacles to the City’s current effort to undo the remaining pension benefits.”

A September editorial in The Wall Street Journal said, “Aguirre deserves kudos for risking the wrath of public-sector unions,” and that a victory in his case “would send a signal that unfunded promises for public-sector employees are not etched in stone, which would be a valuable signal for other state and local governments grappling with extravagant retirement packages for public employees.”

Aguirre is committed to transparency – as Pat Washington, president of the San Diego Democratic Women’s club, said, you don’t have to be in the room with Mike Aguirre to know he’s going to do the right thing.

Peters, conversely, made a troubling comment at a recent forum with the city council contenders.

“No one in the city, including the mayor and City Council, has a place to go where they can say, ‘Hey, I’m worried about something. I messed up. Can I confide in you?’” Peters said. “Because they know they won’t get confidence. They’ll get a press conference.”

Will Peters know the difference between a confidante and corruption? We’re not convinced.

Aguirre’s commitment to the letter of the law may risk his re-election – but it won’t compromise his integrity. The same can’t be said for Peters, who pandered to the San Diego Democratic Club last week. Peters apologized Thursday for his vote to extend the Boy Scouts of America lease in Balboa Park in 2004, despite the organization’s discriminatory practices. The law was clear. The former city attorney allowed the law to be violated, and Peters didn’t have the courage to say otherwise.

Why did Peters wait until he needed an endorsement to apologize to our community?

Peters characterized his vote as a “mistake.” He doesn’t seem to understand that his “mistakes” – voting to support an anti-gay organization, voting to underfund the employee pension plan and nearly bankrupting the city, knowingly withholding key information in the pension crisis, etc. – have serious ramifications. Peters, who is an attorney and should know better, fails to recognize the difference between a mistake and a blatant violation of the law.

And the San Diego Democratic Club fails to recognize its endorsement for Peters, as opposed to Aguirre, or no endorsement, as a vote of confidence in a negligent at best, fair-weather friend – who might be keen to make the same “mistakes” twice.

Aguirre, love him or hate him, risked his District Attorney campaign to argue against extending the boy scouts’ lease. In the same meeting, Peters broke Toni Atkins' heart when he voted to extend the lease, effectively sending the message that Atkins and San Diego’s GLBT residents are relegated to second-class status.