Morris Administration official caught politicking
By now you know the story: Mayor Pat Morris' top secretary caught red-handed using her office, public time and public-funded technology to drum support for a run at elected office. It wasn't quite the Nixon Administration in 1972, but ANY breach of rules prohibiting politicos from parlaying public-office resources into additional power is very serious ....
And it was stopped. By whom? You guessed it, this reporter WITH the essential aid of a reader of S.B. NOW. This is, indeed, a glimpse of what could be the best of interactive, technology-heavy journalism. Reporters, with the aid of thousands of reader-citizen-journalists, able to keep nearly omnipresent eyes always trained on public and private power brokers. Bravo.
This is the story, verbatim, followed by some additional details:
SAN BERNARDINO - Mayor Pat Morris' top administrative assistant faced reprimands Friday for using her city e-mail account to ask for a vote and for a list of contacts to aid her possible run for elected office.
Julie Frazier-Mathews, an executive assistant to the mayor, acknowledged using her city e-mail account to ask a city of Rialto employee to vote for her and provide a list of contacts, presumably for use in a rumored run for city clerk in Rialto in 2008.
Frazier-Mathews admitted to the error after being confronted with a Sept. 28 e-mail obtained by The Sun.
"The e-mail was an honest mistake," Frazier-Mathews said Friday. "It was an isolated e-mail,
but I shouldn't have sent the e-mail."
Frazier-Mathews added that her undeclared run for Rialto city clerk, which is up for election next year, will not continue.
"I'm totally committed to this administration and the city of San Bernardino, and I have no intentions or desires of running for city clerk in the city of Rialto in 2008," she said.
In the e-mail, Frazier-Mathews asks the Rialto employee for political support: "Do you still live in Rialto?" Frazier-Mathews wrote. "If so, I want your vote and all of your contacts as well ... can I have your support?"
State law prohibits use of government equipment and/or government employees to conduct political work while on public time.
A reporter called the mayor's office Friday morning, soon after receiving an anonymous copy of the e-mail.
When told of the e-mail content, Jim Morris, the mayor's son and chief of staff, confronted Frazier-Mathews, who acknowledged its existence and provided him a copy, Morris said.
Morris searched through the rest of the special assistant's e-mail and concluded the offending e-mail was an isolated incident.
Morris said that Frazier-
Mathews was wrong and that appropriate action would be taken.
"Although the series of e-mail communications was completely business related, the incidental political comment was inappropriate."
Morris declined to discuss specifics reprimands Frazier-Mathews might face, citing confidentiality of personnel matters.
He said the mayor discussed the incident in a closed-door meeting with Frazier-Mathews on Friday afternoon.
"They have an eye-to-eye understanding about her unwavering commitment to this city and the mayor's office," he said.
"This office does not involve itself in the politics of other cities."
Frazier-Mathews came to work for the Morris administration in fall 2006 and is the top administrative assistant to the mayor.
Contact writer Robert Rogers at (909) 386-3855 of via e-mail at robert.rogers@sbsun.com.
***
There it is. It should be added that this reporter called City Attorney Jim Penman for comment on this matter. Penman said the breach, as described, was indeed illegal. He further laid blame on the doorstep of Mayor Pat Morris himself, saying the top man in the administration must take responsibility for staffers not being properly "trained" on what they can and can't do per state law.
Penman also offered cryptic reports of "other rumors" that "we've been hearing" in recent weeks ...
Editors at the Sun ultimately opted to nix Penman's opportunity to land a few blows to the Mayor, who was lain prostrate Friday by the Sun's irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing in his administration.
But that doesn't mean it's not blog material - another benefit of the blog is that it provides an outlet for additional story details that don't make the final paper cut.
For the record, Julie Frazier-Mathews has been lauded by many with whom she works as professional and capable. This reporter has spoken with her numerous times and gotten the same impression.
She did something that was wrong, and we reported on it. She says it was a mistake, although one could scarcely believe she didn't know it was illegal. Had we not learned of it through our tipster, it probably would have never come to light.
In fact, it should further be pointed out that Frazier-Mathews' previous emails to her Rialto contact asked for a home or personal email address, indicating that she may not want to get that woman in trouble by passing political information through Rialto city servers, while apparently disregarding the same the pitfall on her own end of the communiques.
Lastly, a colleague, Rialto reporter Jason Pesick, spoke with Frazier-Mathews last month. Pesick called her at work in San Bernardino to ask if she was indeed running for Rialto City Clerk, as had been rumoured. She suggested she call Pesick back later on her personal phone, which she did. She told Pesick it was inappropriate to mix work with her potential campaign.
So, without question, she knew the email was against the rules. She says it was an "honest mistake," which it may be, but it would have to have been an "oversight" as well, since she displayed a previous carefulness with respect to these rules.
Comments
OK ~ We get it.
Julie's an attentive employee by your own admission, has been proven to be careful by another reporter and made a mistake.
What's proven here?
She's human.
What world would we be in if every little misstep landed us in the coals?
Back to SB election issues, please.
It is noteworthy that "Editors at the Sun ultimately opted to nix Penman's opportunity to land a few blows to the Mayor, who was lain prostrate Friday by the Sun's irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing in his administration".
How about laying THAT out in SUN, for ALL to see?
The acts of an elected official, and candidate, are arguably more newsworthy that those of an office worker and officially NOT running for office person.
Don't you agree?
Susana
Posted by: Susana Atanasova | October 6, 2007 7:59 PM
“Penman’s… ….lain prostrate Friday by the Sun’s irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing…”
I feel the investigative efforts should focus there. Yes, it’s proven office worker Julie knew better, but who would know better than to spend workday time blogging than long-time elected San Bernardino City Attorney Jim Penman?
Susana
Posted by: Susana Atanasova | October 7, 2007 2:57 AM
Oh, this is too silly. To think that a secretary would have powers, and in the mayor's office--come on. Or, maybe a secretary has more power then you would expect--keep you thinking. The one thing that keeps coming up in my mind, is that Julie is asking some, or more so not asking ("I want your vote"), for Rialto's city clerk, and then denying it when asked if this was her intention. But remember, she is as expendible as the former person who sat in that chair not too long ago, isn't she what they call an at-will employee, working in an elected officials office. They can let her go anytime without any reason. So I am sure that Julie will be on her P's and Q's from now on. I wonder if she left Rialto City specifically for the intention of running for city clerk. She couldn't do that while working there, so she has in fact, put herself in a good position to do this. I don't believe this poses a conflict, as I do know of one other city employee who served on a council seat for another city.
We really need to take a look at top management, I bet they are all cleaning out any messages that may not be business related--although that really wouldn't matter now--it's all city owned, you can't delete it. Does anyone know or remember what happened with the former IS director?
Posted by: Dena Peters | October 7, 2007 5:28 PM
Well, bless my soul!
Dena,
You've said it all! I don't feel a need to write more than a compliment for your sharing the above.
I hear everyone breathing a sigh of relief. ;-)
No long post needed here, Dena's said it well!
Your Friend & Neighbor,
Susana Atanasova
Posted by: Susana Atanasova | October 7, 2007 10:24 PM
I noticed that the Mayor got his bloggers on board ASAP. This is the same tactic that Ron Paul's blind followers use in trying to cover up his blunders. How would the cackling hens react if if was Jim Penman's office staff that committed this blunder? I can tell you that they would become roosters and shout it out 24/7. The mud slinger who attempts to turn this Mayor's pet problem around by accusing Mr. Penman of blogging on "company time" shows a shade of yellow in her blogging.
Posted by: Joe Ortiz | October 10, 2007 12:05 AM
Joe,
I don't get where you see "a shade of yellow" in my posts. It is you, Dena, David Owen, elected officials, a former city employee, and your various family members (I hope I'm not leaving anyone out) that post here with me without hiding behind an alias.
I promise you 100% I AM NOT, and HAVE NOT, posted ANYTHING but my own thinking here; the mayor and ALL the campaigns have bigger fish to fry than insignificant me, writing here for the novelty of first-time blogging and an interest in local politics, nothing more. Chances are high I will drop the blog when the elections are over. I may drop it sooner, as I need to take several trips out of town soon.
In any case, it's been amusing to interact in this modern format with you and the other people mentioned above. It's a new dimension to the electoral process I'd not experienced before.
Thank you for participating in political discourse here, for letting your unique voice be heard. It has been a pleasure and I hope to one day meet you, so as to put a face and voice to the words on the screen.
I attended the City Hall Candidates' Forum. Were you there?
Posted by: Susana Atanasova | October 11, 2007 1:31 AM
Susana, Joe was there BOTH nights however we didn't see you and your hat at last night's forum. Hiding in the back? As for those of us "hiding" behind an alias....did you think that maybe we are in positions that do not allow us to speak in a frank and open manner with our names associated due to our positions in the community. And we aren't talking about "all that wonderful volunteer work" that you are so fond of touting every chance you get. You certainly aren't one to hide YOUR light under a bushel.
Posted by: SB Homegirl | October 11, 2007 11:58 AM
Is that a big, dark cloud looming overhead?
Tut, tut....looks like rain Pooh Bear.
Posted by: Christopher Robin | October 11, 2007 12:00 PM
Well, at the first one I ended up having to hold me right hand over my ear to block out Judi Penman, sitting directly behind me ~ when she wasn't racing down the aisle to flail her arms and mouth direct at Sanborn... Luckily for the Penman-Sanborn-McCammack "camp", Wendy noticed Judi and wrote instructions to Sanborn to remember the lesson she's learned very well: look into the camera, not that it did much good. Anyone watching the reruns will see when Wendy slides the tablet with the communique over to Sanborn.
I'll say this, attending the forums is something I recommend to ALL VOTERS. By being there in person, you get the opportunity to add another dimension to the candidacies, that's for sure!
For example, I knew Wendy & Jim were... "in agreement", I'll say, and I knew about them clasping hands to hoist BAD BDA on the public, but I wasn't aware of the set-up they'd made to have Sanborn split the vote against Jim Mulvihill until I saw it with my own two eyes.
That was a sad moment, but illuminating. I'd been perplexed about the 7th Ward voters, generally an intelligent group, not electing Jim Mulvihill. Now, I'm no longer perplexed on that point: Penman-McCammack-Sanborn unite in a 3 against one consorted effort to thwart the voice of reason and expertise in Ward 7. That's too bad.
But, like someone mentioned earlier, it's not my ward, so, there's not a whole lot I can do about it.
I can bring it to the light of day here, but that's about all.
The voters of Ward 7 need to wake up to what's happening ~ to how the political process there is being manipulated, and take commensurate action.
I hope, but doubt, they will.
After the orchestration I witnessed at the forum, I hold low expectations for the excellence Jim Mulvihill offers arriving at SBCH.
That's a real shame.
Your Friend & Neighbor,
Susana Atanasova
Posted by: Susana Atanasova | October 12, 2007 5:45 AM