Katehi’s suspension was also spurred by allegations her son and daughter-in-law, who are employees of the university, got large and unwarranted raises. But Napolitano also made plain her disapproval of Katehi’s attempts at damage control, saying her decisions raised “serious and troubling questions.”

Now it has emerged that UC spent $158,000 in its own damage-control effort in a bid to counter the harsh criticism Napolitano and other UC officials faced after State Auditor Elaine Howle released an audit in March that said UC was admitting out-of-state students over more qualified in-state students solely for budget reasons. Howle also said UC officials sharply increased out-of-state enrollment rather than take even basic steps to control spending when state funding plunged because of the sharp decline in state revenue after 2007.

UC planned PR blitz before audit even released

UC officials first learned of Howle’s scathing audit in February. That’s when the UC Office of the President decided to mount a PR campaign that “included a report rebutting the conclusions of the audit; digital ads on websites, Facebook and Twitter; and sponsorships on public radio stations throughout the state,” the Bee reported.

An aide to Napolitano disputed the idea that state funding or tuition dollars were used. Instead, the aide told the Bee that the $158,000 came out of the “endowment cost recovery fund.” The fund was described as using endowment earnings for various purposes, including trying to promote university fundraising.

Some of the $158,000 was used to release a glossy 32-page report soon after the audit was published that depicted UC as reacting resourcefully and intelligently to the state funding crisis. Another major expenditure was for radio ads promoting UC on public radio stations around the California.

UC officials insisted there was a major difference between what Katehi did and what the UC Office of the President had done. They said that UC had followed standard processes and had used consultants for PR campaigns before, and that Napolitano had never objected to Katehi’s use of consultants — only to the evidence that Katehi had made  “material misstatements” about her role in efforts to scrub UC Davis’ online image.

But if these distinctions help UC avoid allegations of hypocrisy, the UC damage-control campaign still rankled some in the Legislature who said UC should take the audit seriously — not pay to try to gloss it over.

“I am in total disbelief once again,” Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson, told the Bee. “They have taken this elitist attitude that they can do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it.”

The affluent city has been roiled three times since December by cases where police fatally shot criminal suspects who didn’t appear to be an immediate threat to police or others nearby.

One consequence was the local Black Lives Matter branch pulling out of the signature event of the Gay Pride weekend in San Francisco over reports that police were going to have a higher presence because of post-Orlando massacre fears.

Black Lives Matter, which was to be an organizational grand marshal for the parade themed “For Racial and Economic Justice,” cited concerns over the San Francisco Police Department’s “recent track record of racist scandal and killings of people of color” and how first responders can be a source of harm to “queer communities of color.”

“The Black Lives Matter network is grateful to the people of San Francisco for choosing us, we choose you too,” said Malkia Cyril, a member of Black Lives Matter, in a press release. “As queer people of color, we are disproportionately targeted by both vigilante and police violence.”

That’s from an account in the Los Angeles Times.

Police union wary of S.F. reforms

This weekend flap came after the San Francisco Police Commission took an extraordinary step last week to impose formal limits on officers’ use of force. 

The amended policy calls for the use of “minimal” force in dealing with suspects, not “reasonable” force, which is the standard with the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court. It also formally underscored the importance of officers using “de-escalation” techniques in incidents with members of the public that appear to have the potential for violence.

In negotiations with the ACLU, city leaders, the Public Defenders Office and other community groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association strongly objected to the “minimal” force requirement. But the police union ended up agreeing not to oppose the change — for now.

The union has already emphasized it will never agree to a ban on the use of carotid restraint holds or to sharp new limits on shooting at moving vehicles.

This matters because collective bargaining laws still give the police union the chance to affect final policies.

Police may stop doing ‘anything but taking reports’

The fatal shooting of an unarmed criminal suspect in mid-May led to Police Chief Suhr’s forced resignation and his replacement on a temporary basis by one of his top aides, Deputy Chief Toney Chaplin.

San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, who have broken many key stories in police controversies in recent years, released a report that may make it difficult for SFPD to attract a high-profile replacement in a nationwide search.

Morale is so bad among officers convinced that they are being treated unfairly that it could soon affect everyday policing, Matier & Ross wrote.

“The fear is, they aren’t going to do anything but taking reports,” an unnamed San Francisco police union official told the columnists.

Since the protests in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014 triggered sharp, sustained criticism of police behavior, crime has gone up in several U.S. cities. The cause or causes are a matter of much dispute. But a National Institute of Justice report this month said it was plausible to see the post-Ferguson criticism affecting how police did their jobs.

Activists are furious with the PUC’s 2014 decision to make ratepayers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric cover 70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of shuttering the facility, which had severe problems with steam generators that forced its closure. After the decision, it was discovered that the parameters of the deal had been worked out clandestinely in 2013 in a meeting in a Warsaw, Poland, hotel room between an Edison executive and then-PUC President Michael Peevey.

Both the state and federal governments have launched criminal investigations of Peevey over his failure to disclose contacts with utility executives and his alleged attempts to pressure utilities for favors in return for his support on some regulatory decisions.

But while the criminal division of the state Attorney General’s Office is pursuing the criminal probe, the civil division of the office is supporting Gov. Jerry Brown in his fight against disclosing emails between his office, the PUC and utilities during the period decisions were being made about how to pay for the costs of closing San Onofre.

Recent coverage of the case in the San Diego media has featured sharp criticism of Harris’ dual role in dealing with the scandal.

“In this case, for the [attorney general] to investigate the communications with the [California Public Utilities Commission] while representing a potential witness who is a potential subject of the investigation is a conflict,” former San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst told KPBS.

“One of the problems with the conflict is it invites the attorney general to narrow the investigation to avoid the conflict,” former San Diego City Attorney Mark Aguirre told the San Diego public broadcasting affiliate.

“If the investigation into the Public Utilities Commission involves the nuclear power plant, and that is something that’s the subject of the governor’s emails they are trying to keep secret, then I think there is a conflict,” Georgetown University law professor Paul F. Rothstein told the Union-Tribune. “The Attorney General’s Office should probably turn over one or the other of these cases to an independent counsel.”

“Government works best when it shines light on problems, not seeks to keep the public in the dark,” University of San Diego law professor Shaun Martin told the newspaper, criticizing Harris for helping efforts to keep public records from being released to the media.

‘Ethical firewall’ said to separate AG branches

Harris’ aides deny there is any conflict and depict their actions in working with the governor on email requests as routine:

A Harris spokesman said there’s an ethical firewall between the attorney general’s civil division representing the governor’s office and its criminal section responsible for the investigation into the California Public Utilities Commission and the state’s energy companies.

That’s from KPBS’ coverage.

Brown said the six bills had several worthwhile ideas. “Unfortunately, taken together there are various technical and conflicting issues that make the over 50 proposed reforms unworkable. Some prudent prioritization is needed,” he wrote.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, who co-sponsored Senate Bill 660, the most sweeping reform measure, expressed disappointment and dismay. So did Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, the Lakewood Democrat who will take over as speaker in coming months.

The measures were intended to limit back-room dealings in which PUC officials and board members met surreptitiously with representatives of the state’s powerful investor-owned utilities. The most notorious example was a 2013 meeting in a Warsaw, Poland, hotel between then-PUC President Michael Peevey and a Southern California Edison executive at which the parameters were set for a later-approved deal in which ratepayers bore 70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear plant. Southern California Edison is San Onofre’s majority owner and San Diego Gas & Electric is the minority owner. The meeting and its central role in the bailout approved by the PUC wasn’t disclosed until February of this year.

Ex-PUC president’s home searched by investigators

Peevey is the subject of state and federal criminal investigations over the San Onofre deal and other PUC decisions. He left the PUC under pressure in late 2014. Soon after, his La Canada Flintridge home was searched by investigators looking for evidence of improper relationships with the utilities he used to govern.

Within weeks after the raid, the PUC released emails that raised troubling questions about the cozy ties between Peevey and top officials at Pacific Gas & Electric, the giant Northern California utility. This is from a February CalWatchdog account:

Emails show Peevey pressured PG&E to give money to oppose Proposition 23, the failed 2010 ballot measure opposing AB32; appeared to link his support for rate hikes to PG&E actions on unrelated issues; and was open to PG&E efforts to influence inquiries into a San Pedro pipeline explosion that killed eight people. … He sought to prop up a project by the Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) firm by constantly reminding PG&E how much he had done for it.

The Brown administration promised to work with lawmakers on a more streamlined reform proposal in coming months. But in the meantime, as Hueso told the Union-Tribune, the PUC has “little incentive to work toward a culture of openness and accountability.”

The agency has been accused of being excruciatingly slow in releasing crucial documents, whether to criminal investigators, the Legislature or journalists. It also appears to be shrugging off growing calls to scrap the deal on how to cover the $4.7 billion cost of closing San Onofre.

Michael Aguirre, the San Diego attorney who led testimony against the San Onofre plan last fall, had the sharpest reaction to the governor’s decision. He told the Union-Tribune that “Jerry Brown’s vetoes show he is helping — not stopping– the dishonest practices known to the people of California.”

Brown chose aide to replace Peevey, not outsider

A previous decision by the governor already suggested he doesn’t share the prevailing view in Sacramento that the PUC is badly in need of a culture change. When Peevey was forced out in December of last year, Brown could have appointed an outside energy expert with a history of independence. Instead, he named PUC board member Michael Picker as president. Though Picker has only been on the board since January 2014, he is an energy establishment insider, working for Brown — and with the utilities  — from 2009 as a senior energy adviser until joining PUC management.

Despite continued criticism of PUC secretiveness, Picker’s selection as board president was ratified by the state Senate a month ago.

This is from VOSD’s weekend report on the odd way the scandal is unfolding in California’s second-largest school district:

Last Tuesday, trustees emerged from a three-hour closed-session meeting and announced they’ll vote this week on hiring an investigator to look into a private fundraiser Foster held for her sons, and whether Foster was behind a complaint that sought $250,000 in response to a negative college evaluation letter written about her son.

 

Trustee Richard Barrera said he will ask the board to consider which issues are truly relevant to the school district.

 

“With the legal claim, we need to be thoughtful about what is in the district’s interest considering that this claim was already dismissed, and no money was paid,” Barrera said. “From the district’s standpoint, the matter is settled.”

 

Barrera said conversation about the allegations should be tempered with a show of support for Foster’s efforts to promote equity for all students. That’s why he and trustee Mike McQuary moved forward on the proclamation.

 

“I’m concerned there’s a single story getting out there about Marne,” Barrera said. “I just want to make sure we don’t lose sight of the work she’s done.”

Powerful union leader backs his protege

Barrera’s emergence as a Foster defender is a big development in that he has far more political clout than all the other board members combined. His full-time job is as secretary-treasurer of the San Diego Labor Council, an omnibus union group. He helped persuade Foster, a community college teacher and school activist, to run for school board.

It’s also good news for district Superintendent Cindy Marten. Many school boards would have reacted differently to news of a superintendent countenancing a board member throwing her weight around and causing major problems at a respected district school because her son didn’t get a favorable college reference.

As CalWatchdog reported previously …

Kim Abagat, a school counselor, came forward to tell the Voice of San Diego that she had been suspended by the district for nine days for not writing a laudatory college recommendation for Foster’s son, who was ranked 100th in GPA in a class of 147. Abagat said she was punished for telling the truth.

Mitzi Lizarraga, the school principal, also was punished for the actions of her staff. This is from the Voice of San Diego:

Lizarraga said as the 2013-2014 school year drew to a close, Foster’s son had unresolved behavioral issues. Students have to meet with a school committee to review the issues before they’re allowed to participate in end-of-the-year activities. Foster’s son did not appear for the review, Lizarraga said. For that, he couldn’t go to prom – the same consequences students in similar situations face.

 

Not long after, Lamont Jackson, the area superintendent responsible for the school, requested a meeting with Lizarraga. He was there to tell her Foster’s son would be attending the dance, she said.

 

“At that point, I just threw my hands up and said, ‘Fine. I’m so sick of Marne Foster. I’m tired of her throwing her weight around and her thinking the rules don’t apply to her,’” Lizarraga said.

 

She said she was shocked by what came next.

 

“He said, ‘Good. Now that that’s resolved, let’s talk about where you’re going to be next year. We have some questions about your leadership at this school,’ ” Lizarraga said.

 

Lizarraga would not complete the year. Jackson asked for her keys to the school, she said, and she was not allowed to attend the school’s graduation ceremony.

The same article details how Barrera made Foster his handpicked candidate to run for the school board in 2012.

Foster is up for re-election in 2016.

Legislators considered scrapping the Medical Board entirely, then settled for a less punitive approach. But concern about how the state agency operates is once again back in the news, and the focus is once again on its leaders’ attitude about painkillers. The Los Angeles Times has details:

An Orange County doctor accused of gross negligence in the care of two patients who fatally overdosed on drugs he prescribed has been placed on probation by the Medical Board of California.

 

Van H. Vu, who owns a busy pain clinic in Huntington Beach, agreed not to contest the board’s accusation, to take classes in prescribing and record keeping and to submit to an outside practice monitor for five years. In exchange, the board allowed Vu to keep his license and continue prescribing potent painkillers.

This has rekindled the complaints made in 2013 that the Medical Board is too sympathetic toward doctors accused of wrongdoing and not concerned enough about public safety.

Doctor linked to more than a dozen overdose deaths

A 2012 investigation of Vu by the Times showed a pattern of practice that dumbfounded independent medical authorities:

Avoids ‘uncertainty of a trial’

An official with the American Association of Pain Medicine condemned Vu in 2012, saying his prescription practices were grossly inappropriate and reflected an ignorance of the danger of such drugs as Oxycodone.

It’s not clear how much weight such observations carried with the Medical Board in deciding Vu’s punishment earlier this month. But the agency’s spokeswoman defended its light sanctions as serving the public’s interest “by avoiding the expense and uncertainty of a trial.”

“It makes the resolution faster,” spokeswoman Cassandra Hockenson told the Times. “We still have the upper hand. He will be watched very, very closely. … If he deviates one iota from these probationary requirements, revocation is back on the table.”

The Vu case could rekindle interest in the Legislature in making changes to the Medical Board. But it is uncertain who would lead such a campaign. The two state senators who led the push for the 2013 reform measure are no longer in Sacramento. Curren Price was elected to the Los Angeles City Council and Ted Lieu was elected to Congress.

The Vu case could spur yet another push to increase the state’s 30-year-old cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

California voters, however, have backed the cap — most recently last November, when state voters rejected Proposition 46, which would have made big changes in the 1975 law.

Tens of thousands of state employees have exceeded the official limit of 80 banked vacation days, leaving the state on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

What are the names of the workers at the top of the list? The State Controller’s Office, which collects the information and generally prides itself on transparency, wouldn’t say.

Rick Chivaro, the controller’s top lawyer, said he considered the information confidential, even though his office routinely discloses salaries of state workers by name.

It turns out that one of the two top vacation troves belongs to Chivaro himself. By June of last year, he had saved up 498 days of vacation, more than six times the limit. If he retired with that much time off, Chivaro could cash out $317,000 ­­– nearly two years of pay.

The Center for Investigative Reporting was able to identify a few of the state’s biggest vacation misers by their pay rates and job titles, information provided by Chivaro in response to a public records request. …

Two and a half years ago, the controller’s office criticized the California Lottery Commission for failing to enforce the state vacation cap among its employees. Yet the controller’s office employs 48 individuals with at least twice the maximum vacation days, the data shows. Seven of them, including its chief of human resources, had more vacation on the books than anyone at the Lottery Commission.

Who is overseeing the overseers?

As Cal Watchdog has pointed out repeatedly, a fundamental problem in trying to rein in the cost of government pensions and perks is that the officials who should be cracking down on the abuses have a financial incentive to look the other way or to downplay problems. The CIR report touched on this angle:

“Wow. That’s just wrong,” said Joe Nation, professor of the practice of public policy at Stanford University. “Anyone on the inside or the outside (of government) knows that that’s wrong.”

Nation, a former state lawmaker and municipal water board president, said it’s especially inappropriate for senior managers in salaried positions to “be able to take advantage of and abuse rules like this.”

What would a more reasonable policy look like? The CIR offers some larger context, than points to another big state:

Workers across the country make do with a finite amount of vacation. Many companies, and some states, have use-it-or-lose-it policies that keep employees from carrying over endless amounts of vacation.

In New York, for example, state workers can’t roll over more than 40 days and get paid out for up to 30 days if they quit or retire. At the stingy end of the spectrum, many employers don’t let workers save any unused time off at all, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.

As for unlimited stockpiling of vacation, “I’ve never seen it in the private sector,” said Bruce Elliott, manager of compensation and benefits for the Virginia-based organization. “It’s crazy to do that if you don’t expect a big expense.”

State Sen. Ron Calderon and his brother Thomas, a former assemblyman, were indicted late Thursday in a massive bribery and insurance fraud case that could send them to prison for the rest of their lives.

A 24-count criminal complaint made public Friday revealed that Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, solicited and accepted approximately $30,000 in cash bribes to push through legislation that helped a hospital owner who was engaged in workers compensation insurance fraud. Another $70,000 was solicited from undercover FBI agents posing as movie executives to create legislation to benefit the movie industry.

The crimes occurred between 2010 and 2013 and also involved Michael D. Drobot, former owner of the now-defunct Pacific Hospital in Long Beach, who was charged with submitting inflated insurance claims and paying the bribes to curtail legislation aimed at stopping such behavior.

“Sen. Calderon is accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and using the powers of his elected office to enrich himself and his brother Tom, rather than for the benefit of the public he was sworn to serve,” U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said in a statement.

The Calderon brothers were notified of the charges through their attorneys on Friday. Thomas appeared in court at the end of the day and pleaded not guilty. He was released on a $25,000 bond and ordered to stand trial on April 15. Ron is scheduled to turn himself in on Monday. If convicted of all 24 counts, Ron faces a maximum prison sentence of 396 years in prison.

Laundering allegedly done via nonprofit group

Thomas, who is charged with seven counts of money laundering, could receive a maximum of 160 years. The indictment said he conspired with Ron to launder the bribery funds through a nonprofit that the brothers controlled called Californians for Diversity. Funds were then diverted from the nonprofit to either Thomas Calderon’s personal bank account or his consulting business, The Calderon Group.

Last April, FBI agents had tapped telephone lines and recorded the pair discussing the money laundering. On one occasion, Ron told Thomas that he had “closed the deal” with the movie executive who had agreed to send “future bribe payments through defendant Thomas M. Calderon’s company,” the indictment said.

The federal investigation was no secret to Ron Calderon, who learned about it on May 4, 2013. On that date, he flew to Las Vegas to meet with the purported owner of an independent film studio he had allegedly been receiving bribes from as payment for introducing legislation granting tax breaks for low-budget filmmakers. A ruse was set up to receive the funds: Calderon’s daughter had a job with the studio and began receiving a series of payments even though she did no work.

True to his word, Calderon introduced legislation lowering the threshold for a filmmaker’s tax break from $1 million to $750,000.

But Calderon’s plans went awry when he arrived at the Bellagio resort and discovered that the filmmaker and an assistant were actually undercover FBI agents from the Public Corruption Squad who disclosed that he had been under investigation “for quite some time,” a U.S. Attorney’s Office court document said.

Calderon was not arrested and told that he could leave the meeting or cooperate with the investigation. He chose the latter and spoke to the agents for three hours, implicating other senators in his discussion. Then he agreed to another meeting the following day and on four other occasions within the next week.

Calderon agreed to roll over — but not on his family

“Calderon made it clear from his first meeting with the FBI agents that he was willing to wear a wire and record his conversations with other public officials,” the court document said. “The only people Calderon said he was not willing to record were his family members.”

Calderon actually did record two conversations with an unnamed person who has not been charged. He then stopped communicating with agents, so on June 4, 2013, a search warrant was served on his Capitol offices, an event that was covered by the media.

Pacific Hospital was the go-to place for spinal surgeries and several thousand were performed between 2008 and April 2013. During this time, Drobot owned the hospital and he gave doctors kickbacks of $15,000 for performing such surgeries at his hospital and utilizing implantable devices supplied by a company that he owned. That company, International Implants, overcharged the hospital by at least double and the hospital would submit the bills to insurance carriers through the mail – also creating mail fraud, the indictment said.

Beginning in January 2010, the California Senate and the Division of Workers’ Compensation decided to revamp the billing procedures to curtail excessive spending and fraud. Rather than letting hospitals bill separately for hardware, the amount was to be folded into the total cost of the surgery which had a set fee schedule.

Allegedly fought to preserve hospital scam

Calderon met with two other senators and emailed a third in order to quell this overhaul. He also arranged to have his son work at International Implants as a file clerk during the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The younger Calderon was paid a total of $30,000 – money that went toward his college tuition — even though he only worked 15 days per summer. Then he filed tax returns showing a write-off of most of the money, the indictment said.

Drobot also showered Calderon with other gifts like vacations with usage of a private jet, rounds of golf at high-end resorts and meals at pricey restaurants. None of this was disclosed on Calderon’s conflict of interest forms, the indictment said.

Eventually this was for naught, because the law overhauling the medical hardware passed in January 2013. By that time, Drobot had billed insurance companies approximately $500,000 for spinal surgeries and had paid upwards of $50 million in kickbacks to doctors. Other professionals such as chiropractors and marketers would receive kickbacks as well for their referrals for other types of surgeries. The kickback amount was just folded into the contract for services.

“In some cases, the patients lived dozens or hundreds of miles from Pacific Hospital and closer to other qualified medical facilities,” Drobot’s plea agreement said.

When he is sentenced, Drobot faces a maximum of 10 years in prison, an order of restitution and a fine that could equal twice victims’ loss.

But what we’re not seeing nearly enough of from the Democrats who want Filner out is contrition for their role in inflicting him on the female staff of City Hall. The warnings that Filner didn’t have the right temperament for mayor began the day he declared for the race in June 2011 and never stopped. Too many people had seen too much ugliness to not expect much more when Filner was under the spotlight 24/7/365 as mayor, as opposed to being an anonymous congressman in Washington surrounded by lobbyists  who aren’t likely to complain about his forward manner.

No apologies from key supporter, just anguish

CityBeat, the city’s strongest progressive voice, openly worried about Filner in its 2012 primary endorsement of him.

“We already knew that Filner can be cantankerous and overbearing and has a reputation for creating a work environment that’s not always pleasant. Meanwhile, with Filner—how shall we put this?—the threat level for scandal of varying sorts is at least orange. Color us concerned.”

But it didn’t worry enough. Now CityBeat is worrying about the damage Filner is doing.

“San Diego has a mayor who’s not allowed to be alone with a woman on city property. We repeat: San Diego has a mayor who’s not allowed to be alone with a woman on city property. Let that sink in. …

“The mayor’s chief of staff, who’s supposed to serve him and help create an environment conducive to success, is tasked with making sure that he doesn’t prey on women. His security detail, whose job is to protect the mayor from those who might harm him, is charged with protecting female city staffers and members of the public who might be harmed by the mayor. San Diego is a sad, sick joke, manna from heaven for cynics who like to giggle at politicians’ pratfalls.”

It’s good to see the anguish. But it would also be nice to see a flat apology: “We were wrong, and we’re sorry we helped Bob Filner gain power.”

DeMaio has tough decision to make

In the mean time, the Filner fallout has both local and national Republicans worried about the 52nd congressional seat won by Democrat Scott Peters last November despite GOP-leaning demographics. GOPer Carl DeMaio was seen as mounting a very strong challenge to Peters in 2014. But most people assume DeMaio, who lost narrowly to Filner nine months ago, would much rather be mayor than have to fly back and forth across the country 40 weekends a year. This would leave the GOP in a pickle in the 52nd race.

Here’s part of the U-T San Diego analysis:

“DeMaio’s name now appears on everybody’s list of potential contenders to replace Mayor Bob Filner if the recent sexual harassment accusations force him from office.

“It’s undoubtedly a tough call for DeMaio and many within the Republican Party. DeMaio has a large, core group of supporters who like to see him in the Mayor’s Office. But abandoning or suspending his congressional run in next year’s election could torpedo the party’s hopes in that contest and upset many of those who have donated to that campaign.

“Complicating any decision is one simple fact: there is no mayoral election. If there is one, right now there’s no telling when it would be. Filner seems determined to stay put. Yet the clock is already ticking for DeMaio to make a choice.

“In order to run for mayor, DeMaio would have to abandon or suspend his congressional effort, one that has raised close to $500,000 in less than a month and has his name being widely mentioned as a potential rising GOP star and one to watch. …

“On the surface, DeMaio appears focused solely on that race, spending most of last week fundraising and meeting with Capitol Hill movers and shakers in Washington.

“But the prospect of an open mayor’s seat may be too much to let slip by.”

DeMaio will need to decide soon. Or at least that’s the consensus of GOP insiders who have talked to big donors.

Washington Post “The Fix” blogger Sean Sullivan is sure that Filner is doomed:

“San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is not resigning. He’s made that very clear publicly.

“In reality though, the Congressman-turned-mayor, who faces sexual harassment allegations and calls for him to step down, almost certainly can’t survive for much longer

“’It’s difficult for me to see how Filner can actually govern the second-largest city in the largest state in such distracting and debilitating circumstances with no base of support, no spouse or significant other to attest to his good qualities, no real friends, and no loyalty from his own party members,’ said veteran California Democratic strategist Garry South.”

“Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.”

Filner is winning the framing game

Sullivan is a smug and uninformed dolt. Here’s an infinitely smarter take from SD Rostra blogger Greg Larkin, who quotes a City Hall insider who understands that Filner has had a good week, not a bad one:

“They’ve been able to trivialize and reduce down serious sexual harassment and sexual battery claims as a workplace issue that should be handled internally by the City’s HR department, despite the fact that some of the allegations are not from city employees.

“They’ve been able to turn the tables on the alleged victims, nearly daring them to come forward and reveal themselves to public scrutiny.

“They’ve been able to swat away calls for Filner to step down by claiming that ‘due process’ is first deserved, an amorphous term which they control and continue to define, because Filner is the one who will let you know whether he has received it or not.

“They’ve been able to deflect arguments that an embattled Mayor can’t perform his job, by suggesting the Mayor’s role is mostly a management position, and then hiring an experienced, respected former county official to run city operations on an interim basis.”

I still believe Filner is unlikely to survive. Eventually, a woman will go public with her complaints, and if she is even faintly sympathetic, here comes a cable-TV circus. Filner will come across as a loathsome 70-year-old lecher, a gargoyle masquerading as a public servant.

But as Larkin points out, what’s happened so far reflects a mayor who is not stunned and reeling. He’s maneuvering to keep his job, and pretty capably.

It’s going to take a knockout to get Filner to quit. So far, his critics haven’t even knocked him down.