D.A. Finds No Case Against Bernhardt

Ousted San Diego City Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt, dogged by an official investigation into allegations of wrongdoing throughout her losing 1991 recall election campaign, will not be charged by District Atty. Edwin L. Miller Jr.’s office.

In an Aug. 30 letter to City Atty. John Witt, who is still considering misdemeanor charges against Bernhardt, Miller reported that “we have not developed sufficient evidence to charge Bernhardt with any felony crime.” Witt released the letter Tuesday.

Bernhardt said that she was “not surprised” by the result of the investigation. “I consistently said during my tenure in office that I had done nothing illegal,” she added. “The entire complaint lodged against me was based with the recall committee and was done for political motives.”

Miller’s investigation “substantiated that there was an appearance that (campaign) contributions were encouraged to facilitate access to Bernhardt,” after her 1989 election to the City Council. But he said he had no facts on which to prosecute.

He also criticized Bernhardt for pledging full cooperation but failing to provide it and said that unnamed Bernhardt associates placed “restrictive conditions on our efforts to obtain information.”

After staging an upset victory in the 1989 race for council, Bernhardt became the first city politician in modern times to be recalled from office when 5th District residents voted overwhelmingly in April to replace her less than halfway into her term.

Recall leaders said their effort was sparked by Bernhardt’s votes to jettison portions of her district in the city’s 1990 reapportionment and her acceptance of developer contributions after she ran a campaign pledging not to take builders’ money.

But Miller’s conduct became a campaign issue in December when it was revealed that he had launched an investigation of the embattled councilwoman. Bernhardt, who said that the recall was an attempt to dismantle a progressive majority on the City Council, alleged that Miller was aiding that effort by checking into unfounded and politically motivated accusations.

Miller’s office has consistently denied those accusations.

Witt’s office is still considering whether to charge Bernhardt with violations of a city statute prohibiting outstanding campaign debts of more than 30 days. Long after she was elected in 1989, Bernhardt owed contractors more than $100,000. Bernhardt has called the city ordinance unconstitutional.

In all, Miller investigated six allegations against Bernhardt. In addition to the contributions-for-access issue, he found no evidence that Bernhardt had destroyed her office calendar; that “persons connected with the Bernhardt campaign” had solicited an individual to break into the office of the recall campaign’s treasurer; or that the council’s former five-member ruling bloc violated the Brown Act by holding secret meetings on the redistricting.

But Miller urged scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest involving two other accusations. Environmental activist Mark Zerbe charged in December that anti-recall forces solicited a campaign contribution from Hartson Medical Services to be funneled through the Sierra Club. The alleged solicitation came at the time that the ambulance company’s contract was up for review by the City Council.

Miller concluded that, since no contribution was made, no laws had been broken. But he wrote that “the potential conflict of interest regarding Bernhardt’s actions” should be reviewed.

Zerbe, a former Sierra Club leader, called Miller’s conclusion “a whitewash.”

“There were clearly a lot of questions that needed to be answered, and the district attorney never did anything about finding out whether any of them were true,” he said.

Miller also urged Witt to review the “potential conflict of interest” in a $66,000 debt owed by Bernhardt to Charles Print-O-Graph, a Glendale print shop owned by District Council 16 of the Southern California Pipe Trades Council. The shop printed mailers for Bernhardt’s 1989 council campaign.

At the time this debt was incurred, an ordinance that would have affected union plumbers was under consideration by a subcommittee of the San Diego City Council, of which Bernhardt was a member, Miller wrote, creating the potential conflict of interest.

The print shop owner told Miller’s office that he contracted with Bernhardt’s campaign on the recommendation of two officials of a San Diego plumbers’ union, both of whom denied that allegation, Miller wrote.