RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Fact-checking the Weir recall
| Wednesday, May 28 2008 3:31 PM
Last Updated: Thursday, May 29 2008 7:21 AM
Signature-gathering for the attempt to recall Bakersfield City Councilman Ken Weir will likely begin soon.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
THE PROPONENTS' STATEMENT
The grounds for the recall are as follows:
Residents of the Third Ward are fed up with the conduct and conflicts of our City Councilman, Ken Weir.
His attitude is condescending, unapologetic and arrogant. We are embarrassed to be represented by him.
As reported by several media outlets:
• He used the city seal for political campaign purposes.
• He failed to disclose all sources of income until he was forced to do so by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission.
• He attended City Council closed sessions regarding his paying client, a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city.
Councilman Weir does not share our vision for improving our quality of life and demanding reasonable standards regarding development in Northeast Bakersfield.
He vindictively, and without just cause, tried to fire the Vice Chairman of the Bakersfield Planning Commission, a man who supports safe, quality development, in Bakersfield.
Weir's divisive proposal to change the selection of Planning Commissioners was disruptive to the functions of the Commission and the City Council.
Weir denied accepting any campaign contributions from special interests associated with controversial out of town developer General Holding, and he returned the contribution only after being exposed by the local press.
It's time for a change.
WEIR'S RESPONSE
The recall threat is mounted by environmental activists who want to take property and unions who want more of taxpayers' money — nothing new. I'm certain these ideas do not reflect the wishes of residents of the Third Ward.
My ideas are business- and family-friendly — upsetting only to those who do not respect property rights or taxpayers' pocketbooks.
I used the "In God We Trust" seal one time on my campaign literature.
As a CPA, I handle folks' tax information in strict confidence. I'm bound by professional and ethical standards to not disclose information regarding my clients without permission. Only after I had secured permission from affected clients did I disclose their names.
I did NOT attend any closed sessions regarding any paying client.
By electing me to the council, voters determined that I do share their vision of clean and safe neighborhoods, protection of property rights and balanced budgets.
The planning commissioner for the Third Ward is NOT accountable, is NOT independent, does NOT respect property rights and needs to be replaced.
My proposal was properly presented and referred to a council subcommittee as is normal.
I have NOT received any campaign contributions from General Holdings.
Photos:
Ken Weir was served notice of a recall effort by Willard Winn during a May City Council meeting.
Related Stories:
- Council committee: Process for planning commissioner appointment should stay same
- Weir blames 'environmental activists' for recall threat
- 'Conflicts' common in Bakersfield's tangled political web
- Recall attempt against Weir starts; opponents serve papers at council meeting
- Weir can't muster up votes to oust Johnson
- Planning commissioner will stay on
City Clerk Pam McCarthy is expected to certify the petitions by the end of this week. Once that is done, the proponents can begin gathering the 4,065 signatures they need from voters in Weir’s 3rd Ward, which is mostly northeast Bakersfield.
If they do it within a month, the recall can be on the November election ballot. Recall proponent Will Winn vowed to achieve that so there’s no costly special election.
The petitions include statements from both sides. We took a close look at some:
WEIR: “The recall threat is mounted by environmental activists who want to take property and unions who want more of taxpayers’ money.”
WHAT HAPPENED: Among the 26 declared proponents are a union official, at least one public employee — although not a city employee — and several people who would describe themselves as “open space advocates” or “recreationalists,” but who could fairly be called environmentalists. But they are not the only people involved in the recall.
RECALLERS: “He used the city seal for political campaign purposes.”
WEIR: “I used the ‘In God We Trust’ seal one time on my campaign literature.”
WHAT HAPPENED: When Weir ran for council in 2006, he sent out a campaign flier that included two reproductions of the city seal. City law prohibits the use of the seal “for any purpose other than for city purposes without the express consent of the city council.”
RECALLERS: “He failed to disclose all sources of income until he was forced to do so by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission.”
WEIR: “As a CPA, I handle folks’ tax information in strict confidence. I’m bound by professional and ethical standards to not disclose information regarding my clients without permission. Only after I had secured permission from affected clients did I disclose their names.”
WHAT HAPPENED: State law requires that Weir, as a candidate and then as an elected official, disclose the names of clients who pay him more than $10,000. Weir did not disclose those names. When the state ordered him to, he waited several days while he sought permission from his clients.
Weir is bound by professional and ethical standards, but in this case, he put those standards over state law. The California Board of Accountancy Regulations Section 54.1 says: “No confidential information obtained by a licensee, in his or her professional capacity, concerning a client or a prospective client shall be disclosed by the licensee without the written permission of the client or prospective client.”
But it sets exceptions: “disclosures made by a licensee in response to an official inquiry from a federal or state government regulatory agency” and “disclosures made when specifically required by law.”
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, to which Weir claims membership, has its own code. “A member in public practice shall not disclose any confidential client information without the specific consent of the client,” says Section 301. “This rule shall not be construed ... to prohibit a member's compliance with applicable laws and government regulations.”
The institute also has issued a ruling that “it is permissible ... to disclose the name of a client, whether publicly or privately owned, without the client's specific consent.”
So Weir was violating state law, and the ethical regulations did not shield him.
RECALLERS: “He attended City Council closed sessions regarding his paying client, a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city.”
WEIR: “I did NOT attend any closed sessions regarding any paying client.”
WHAT HAPPENED: Gordon Downs, a landowner in The Canyons project, was a longtime Weir client. Weir said Downs was no longer a paying client as of Oct. 31, 2006, a few days before his election.
On Jan. 17, 2007, Weir attended a closed session in which the council discussed Downs’ lawsuit.
At the time, Downs wasn’t a paying client. But state law requires officials to avoid attending sessions that have to do with anyone who has paid them in the past 12 months — so Weir should have stayed out of the session, and all sessions relating to Downs, until Oct. 31, 2007.
RECALLERS: “He vindictively, and without just cause, tried to fire the Vice Chairman of the Bakersfield Planning Commission, a man who supports safe, quality development, in Bakersfield.”
WEIR: “The planning commissioner for the Third Ward is NOT accountable, is NOT independent, does NOT respect property rights and needs to be replaced.”
WHAT HAPPENED: Weir says Commissioner Russell Johnson does not respect property rights because he was part of a 6-0 vote to adopt the Hillside Ordinance in 2006. The problem with that, according to Weir, is that it took “two-thirds of a man’s land without compensating him for his loss.” That man, by the way, was Downs.
The ordinance, as passed by the Planning Commission, limited building on slopes because of safety and aesthetic concerns. Those restrictions limited Downs’ land to eight buildable lots. When the city council got the ordinance, then-Councilman Mike Maggard proposed, and the council approved, a change that exempted Downs’ land from the aesthetic concerns and removed some of the slope protection areas, allowing him to build 24 lots.
Although Maggard restored the “two-thirds of a man’s land,” Weir says Johnson is not independent because he works for now-county Supervisor Maggard.
Johnson maintains Maggard exerts no influence over his work on the planning commission.
RECALLERS: “Weir's divisive proposal to change the selection of Planning Commissioners was disruptive to the functions of the Commission and the City Council.”
WEIR: “My proposal was properly presented and referred to a council subcommittee as is normal.”
WHAT HAPPENED: The city council listened to public comment and debated Weir’s proposal, but it didn’t get in the way of any council or commission business. The city council considers many matters that could be considered “divisive.”
RECALLERS: “Weir denied accepting any campaign contributions from special interests associated with controversial out of town developer General Holding, and he returned the contribution only after being exposed by the local press.”
WEIR: “I have NOT received any campaign contributions from General Holdings.”
WHAT HAPPENED: Weir said “I have not received any contributions from General Holdings or other investors in the Canyons Project.” But he did receive $250 from “Citizens for Community Planning,” whose sole source of funding was Robert Kapral, who works for General Holding.
On his own filings, Weir listed it as a personal contribution from Brian Todd, who was also receiving money from CCP.
When asked about the contribution, he said, “Thank you for pointing this out to me. I was not aware of that connection.” He said he refunded the contribution, and even attached a scanned copy of the check.