By Pete Constant
How many times have you read an article online or in a newspaper that questions whether the San José Police Department holds its officers fully accountable for their actions? To be honest, I’ve lost count.
In 1993, the City of San José opened the office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA). This newly created position was designed specifically to ensure that police officers were held accountable for their actions and to ensure that the police Internal Affairs Unit did not whitewash investigations of misconduct.
Approximately 4 years ago the San José City Council appointed Barbara Attard to be the IPA for a four year term. Since Attard lived in San Francisco, the city council provided her relocation assistance and a $250,000 executive home loan so that she could live in the community she served. When her term of office ended at the end of 2008 the city council decided to not re-appoint her. Attard continued to make her payments on her executive home loan for 3 months, and then abruptly stopped paying – even though she continued to make her first mortgage payments to her mortgage company. Months later, she informed the City of San José that she could not sell her home so she offered the city a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, there was still the matter of the first mortgage, so the city would have to pay off that loan in order to take possession of the home. Unfortunately, the city council agreed with this, voting to approve the settlement (9-2, with Councilmember Campos and myself voting against).
So she walked away from her obligations, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag – nearly $350,000 in loan forgiveness, and now the residents of San José own a downtown condo that might be worth $240,000 - if you could even sell it in today’s market.
So I ask, where did the concept of accountability go?
Four and a half years ago the city council approved this home loan, even though it appears to fail to meet the spirit or even the letter of the Executive Home Loan Program. After all, the intent of the loan program was to help new executive relocate to San José, an area long known for its high housing prices. But Attard was coming from San Francisco, an area with even higher housing costs.
Can anyone really argue that accepting a job 40 miles or so from your home requires relocation? Many hardworking city employees and taxpayers commute farther than that every day to their jobs.
The Executive Home Loan Program also specifically states that these loans are for the executive’s “principal residence.” While it was well known that Attard maintained her San Francisco residence during her employment, it is less known that Attard maintained her voter registration in San Francisco County and continued to vote in elections there while she was employed as the IPA. Remember, if you move, you are required to re-register to vote when you move to a new residence. Additionally, Attard never filed for a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption in Santa Clara County, but did keep the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption on file for her San Francisco residence. You can see that to claim this exemption, you must certify, under penalty of perjury, that you occupy your home as your “principal residence”.
So did Attard qualify for an Executive Home Loan to purchase her principal residence? I don’t think so, it’s clear to me she didn’t think it was her principal residence.
So where’s the accountability? Is the city council not responsible for approving this loan? Most of that council is no longer in office, so I guess not. Is Attard responsible for leaving the taxpayers holding the bag? I guess not, since the city attorney has informed the council that we have no other recourse. In fact, the city’s Finance Department doesn’t even think we are able to report the default to the credit reporting agencies.
With the city unable to provide essential services, can we really afford to buy a condo?
I, for one, am not willing to sit by and just let this go. I have asked the city manager to not offer this Executive Home Loan to any new hires until the Council can conduct a full review of the program, and I have asked for an investigation into the facts of the case.
Pete Constant is serving his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteThanks for standing up to the rest of the spineless council on this issue. I for one, am furious that the council can forgive the loans for someone who did a horrible job to begin with, then in the same breath call for insane cuts to public safety employees!! I'm so tired of hearing stories of this city tossing cash to special interests, new art projects, highway foliage, or some other "struggling" ethnic non-profit group, instead of keeping people employed and SAFE!
It's stories like these that piss off people to want total "sunshine" into the councils affairs and breed massive distrust of elected officials!
The 350K loan could have been put to better uses...keeping the HMU unit at SJPD, fixing streets, weed and seed programs, etc... Poor Ms. Attard with her 160+ salary :( Obviously not enough to sustain that mortgage payment.
I for one agree that this preferential treatment should not be offered to any city official ever again at taxpayer expense. Additionally, lets alert the DA's office and IRS and see what they have to think about Attard's dirty little tricks and see what happens. If you or I were to pull that kind of shenanigans, we'd get rung up in a heartbeat!
Thanks for standing up for what is right Pete, keep up the good work, especially for my active police/militay friends getting the shaft by the city!!
Right on Pete.
ReplyDeleteThis is outrageous. A well kept secret in local government circles is that San Jose is not well managed. This is a perfect example.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIt may have been a well kept secret in the past, but it's becoming more obvious every day.
I don't remember reading about this in the Mercury News..Oh wait, this involves the Police Auditor (Barbara Attard) not Police Officers or Firefighters. I forgot that the Mercury News only report biased information against public safety who help our city not take like Barbara Attard...
ReplyDeleteBoo hoo she lost her house, she lost her job, but we all know that if this involved a Police Officer or a Firefighter, the Mercury News would have this story on the front page of the local section, along with their salary, incorrect pension information and any other biased story to get the good people of San Jose to hate and blame the public safety for the budget issues.
Hey Mercury News, how about writing true and accurate stories like this one for you local section?
Not to defend the Murky News, but they published multiple stories about this over the past week...
ReplyDeleteScott "Cassandra" Herhold:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12984716
Internal Affairs:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13023055
Council approves loan bailout: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12991999
This was a Council decision and legal contract in 1999.
ReplyDeleteIsn't what Attard did actually fraud and subject to criminal charges? She obviously lied to get her loan and she should be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteThough the oath I took as a young man was not for so high an office as the Police Auditor, I did nonetheless take it seriously, and have felt that my adherence to its words and spirit was ultimately of greater benefit to me as a person than it was to the American citizens to whom it was designed to protect. The opportunity to step forward and join the rank and file, to challenge oneself to meet the high standards, uphold the proud traditions, and pursue the perilous mission is one that I would wish for every young person of courage, no matter if the honorable rank and file march for its nation's military or civilian law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteWith commitment to serve in mind, and given the information presented here by the councilman, how are we to view the character of Ms. Barbara Attard, who once, by way of her accepting the auditor's position, publicly declared herself worthy of upholding this city's high standards of public service and protecting the public's interests?
Where is the evidence that she respected the taxpaying public? Was it in her eagerness to take financial advantage wherever it be found? To abuse whatever program lay within her reach, as she did with the Executive Home Loan Program, at both ends of her short term of service? Is this the behavior of person who should be passing judgment on others? Can you imagine the media furor this hypocrite would have created had her office uncovered a police officer playing so fast and loose with the city's money?
Where is the evidence that she respected the rule of law? Was it in her duplicitous approach to residency declarations, in matters of both voting rights and property tax relief? Though she apparently lived in her "principal residence" in San Jose, she continued to vote as if she lived in San Francisco, and continued to illegally represent herself as eligible for a tax exemption from the County of San Francisco. Are these the acts of a person who should be overseeing matters of law of any sort? Was she not a ready and vocal critic of how the department interpreted rules, quick to make mountains out of molehills, no matter how honest the intent or benign the impact?
One must wonder, where does one of such low-character get the chutzpah to represent herself as qualified for the Office of IPA? Is it acquired at UC Berkeley, where arrogance and unworkable political ideas appear to be under-graduate requisites? How little she must think of our taxpayers and public institutions to subject them to the likes of her. The lack of integrity so evident in her approach to public service is absolutely consistent with the dishonesty Ms. Attard demonstrated so many times in office with her skewed analysis and cherry-picked statistics, as she did everything in her power to discredit the police department and the fine men and women who serve it.
How Ms. Attard ever came to be considered qualified to audit the police department remains a mystery, but there can be no doubt that given her character she could never have passed the background for a position as a San Jose police officer.
One would hope that Councilman Constant will, in this revolting matter, do his duty as an elected official and notify both the San Francisco DA and the tax assessor of Ms. Attard's blatant disregard of the law. It is high-time that someone audits her.
Councilman Constant is absolutely right. Why were there only 2 votes against this giveaway? Did the mayor and council know all the facts as has been laid out in this blog? If not, could they reconsider? Does anyone know Rose Herrera's phone number?
ReplyDeleteAgain the city shows how they handle money. They give it away when they don't have it. They asked the city worker to give back money so the can give it away to their friends and goons. The question is did the give any money to the city manager when she came from Los Gatos? Maybe Tom MC needs more money from the city to improve his property. Sam will approve that. I bet the metro won't write about this no space after all the PORN adds. What a bunch of clowns the joke is on us we elected them. Not next time!
ReplyDeletePete,
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no excuse for this kind of waste. I think taxpayers should write The Mayor and Council and complain about this. It is completely unacceptable to allow this type of theft by the IPA who received a loan in good faith. She should be sent some type of written reprimand for her actions, and as others have said, she should be reported to the IRS and an investigation into her actions should be ordered.
What I would like to know is WHY the Mayor and Council voted yes on this Pete? Do you know why? If so, please explain it to us.
Pete,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information. I see the Mercury News does read this blog. The supporter who posted the dates and articles of the M.News on this subject shows it. I am also glad to see that this fair and balanced blog printed the response. Now maybe the mercury News will learn to report fair and complete responses in their paper.
Pete, keep up the good work. Please keep supporting public safety. It's the only line that the citizens can call and place a cop in front of a bullet or a fire fighter removing the children of the city from a burning house. May God protect those who protect us.
Just like the city give their friends money and give us the shaft. Sam's family and friends own the downtown area they couldn't give her a place to stay.
ReplyDeleteSettle down folks! This is a new country we live in! It is completely rational what Attard did. She is practicing for a position in the government where it is encouraged to reward bad behavior. I live in a tiny 1200 Square foot house with 4 family members. I was taught to live within my means. I live in East San Jose. Now I watch as all the people who should never have been approved for a loan get bailed out (rewarded) by our government. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as accountability when it comes to politicians (local, state, feds). When a taxpaying legal citizen voices his/her opinion they are labeled. As for the bailouts, the only people being helped are those that have political/bank ties...i.e. Attard is being bailed out by the city. If thats the case, then the city should "bail out" the rest of their employees that have been foreclosed on. Oh thats right the Federal billion dollar bank bailout was suppose to do that...NOT
ReplyDelete