inewsource published a story in April about a lawsuit San Diego environmental attorney Cory Briggs filed against the city of San Diego and Sunroad Enterprises in 2013 alleging a “pay-to-play scheme.”
The city, the suit contended, gave away public property in exchange for a $100,000 donation from Sunroad to then-Mayor Bob Filner’s “pet projects.” At the time, Sunroad was building a commercial-residential development in Kearny Mesa, and the property in dispute included nine-foot wide strips of land on either side of an adjoining park.
The lawsuit was eventually settled in August of 2014 between Sunroad and Briggs. The settlement required:
- Sunroad to pay $10,000 to a city park acquisition fund with “with priority for parks located in Kearny Mesa and then Clairemont.”
- Sunroad to pay Briggs Law Corp. $135,000.
- Sunroad to work with the city in hiring an appraiser to place a value on the land, then pay the city that value “with a request that the City deposit those funds into the appropriate identified City account associated with purchases of public property used as a park.”
inewsource has since learned the city received the $10,000 check from Sunroad on Sept. 5, 2014. According to city spokesman Tim Graham, the money was put into the Parks and Recreation donations account.
“The money has not been spent yet,” Graham told inewsource, “but would be earmarked to buy park furnishings or fund maintenance projects for parks in Kearny Mesa/Clairemont.”
Examples might include benches, plants, or basketball court resurfacing, according to Graham.
inewsource has also learned that the appraisal, which was supposed to have been completed shortly after the Aug. 21, 2014 settlement, is ongoing. Tom Story, a consultant for Sunroad, sent an email to inewsource on April 29 confirming “an appraiser mutually accepted to both parties has been selected.”
“I believe that because of his current workload/backlog,” Story wrote, “that it may be up to 90 days before the appraisal will begin.”
Lastly, Briggs did not respond to questions about his $135,000 settlement, but Sunroad Vice President of Development Andrea Contreras Rosati confirmed the company paid Briggs that amount.
Contreras Rosati worked as a deputy San Diego city attorney until June 2014 when she took a job with Sunroad. After a review of court documents, inewsource found she defended the city in three Briggs-related Sunroad disputes, including:
- The 2013 San Diegans for Open Government lawsuit challenging the Sunroad easement.
- A 2013 lawsuit filed by CREED-21 challenging the same city council action related to the Sunroad easement. The case was eventually merged with the San Diegans for Open Government case that settled in August 2014.
- A 2011 lawsuit filed by CREED-21 against the city of San Diego, Calumet Real Estate Holdings LLC, Tom Story and Aaron Feldman challenging the city’s use of an emergency exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act for the reconstruction of a home in La Jolla. Calumet Real Estate Holdings purchased the property and Calumet is owned by Sunroad Holding — which is owned by Feldman. Sunroad settled with Briggs for $60,000 and the court found the city had misused the emergency exemption.
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Mark J. Rochester, markrochester@inewsource.org
Mark J. Rochester began as inewsource managing editor in April 2021, having served as editor in chief at Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Manhattan. He was previously senior news director for investigations at the Detroit Free Press. Both newsrooms, he notes, shared a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and their investigative journalism often received national recognition for exposing problems impacting communities of color.
His family looks forward to returning to California, having spent more than seven years in San Francisco where Rochester was a senior manager for the Associated Press. While with the news cooperative, he led computer-assisted reporting training efforts around the West, both inside and outside of AP, and conducted a widely used analysis of the $74 million in campaign contributions that went toward the California gay marriage ballot initiative in 2008. The AP analyzed who gave and why and then made the data available to member newspapers. The resulting series of stories based on the data was AP’s 2009 Pulitzer nomination for Local Reporting.
Rochester, who served as a Pulitzer Prize jurist in 2017, also has held senior leadership positions at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Denver Post, Newsday and The Indianapolis Star. Rochester is vice president of Investigative Reporters & Editors Inc., the 6,000+ member international organization dedicated to improving investigative journalism. He also serves on the national advisory board of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University in Washington, D.C.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
Ethics Policy
This policy can be found on this page.
Diversity Statement
This policy can be found on this page.
Diversity Staffing Report
This policy can be found on this page.
Corrections Policy
This policy can be found on this page.
Ownership Structure, Funding
This policy can be found on this page.
Founding Date
2009-11-01
Masthead
This policy can be found on this page.
Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
This policy can be found on this page.
Fact-checking Standards
This policy can be found on this page.
Unnamed Sources Policy
This policy can be found on this page.
Article Post Types
post
Brad–
Thank you for the update confirming and clarifying the role of Contreras Rosati in Sunroad-related lawsuits while deputy city attorney!
On the $10K payment, could you clarify with a more declarative statements of evidence and documentation than “iNewsource has since learned…” followed by a quote from Tim Graham on where the money was put. Am I to infer that the statement of the Sept.5 2014 date is also from Tim Graham, or was the date given to you by someone else (if so, who?), with Mr. Graham only stating the disposition of the funds?
If you could also do a followup on the total number of hours that Ms Cacciatore worked on city contracts with Helix, that would clairfy my confusion between your reporting and Dorian Hargrove’s.
Again, thank you.
To clarify:
On April 14, 2015, we asked the city’s supervising public information officer for any information about the $10,000 payments to the city.
On April 16, 2015, we learned from the PIO, Arian Collins, that the City Treasurer’s Office had found some Sunroad payments — for Fire Inspection Invoices — but they were not related to the $10,000 donation.
We then followed up with Tim Graham to ask the city to double-check that they weren’t missing anything. On April 17, Graham told us he still had not heard back from appropriate city departments to confirm. We published the story later that day.
On April 20, Graham sent an email to us saying, “We were able to determine that Sunroad did provide the City with a $10,000 check that is designated for parks. The check was received on Sept. 5, 2014.”
We followed up and asked where the check was and why it wasn’t located earlier. He wrote back, “It took Parks to track down the appropriate funding area where this check wound up, and as the City is receiving and releasing funds regularly it
took a little time to find that particular piece of information. I tried to get it
to you as fast as I was able to secure it.”
Regarding total hours Cacciatore worked on city contracts with Helix, we do not have that information. We found at least 21 publicly-accessible Helix environmental impact reports where she is listed as a project manager, biologist or primary author. We do not know how many total projects she worked on during her eight years at the company.
Hope that clears things up.
Apologies, let me correct myself. We do know that she worked “91.75 hours” on Helix projects for the CITY, per the Helix memo to Goldsmith’s office available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1680143-helix-j-goldsmith-ltr-03march2015.html
What we don’t know is how many hours she worked TOTAL on all other projects for cities and agencies such as Oceanside, Vista, Chula Vista, Otay Water District and all the others.
If I’m reading Mr. Hargrove’s story correctly, he is saying that Cacciatore’s total work time for Helix is 91.75 hours. That is incorrect, unless she worked for free on all the other projects we’ve mentioned.
Will inewsource be updating the April 17, 2015 article with corrections? That would seem appropriate to me.
I have been troubled by this series from the beginning and it seems to be coming unraveled. The reporting of Dorian Hargrove in the Reader is particularly helpful, since without his insights the inewsource viewpoint would be left to be the only voice on the matter.
This series notes that two inewsource reporters have been investigating Cory Briggs for many months, coming through thousands of documents. What has never been explained (to my knowledge) is what prompted inewsource to undertake the investigation. Considering the various allegations of conflicts of interest among the inewsource sources, it would be interesting to understand.
Little bits of this befuddle me. For example, Ms. Cacciatore is said (by herself) to have mis-spoken in a deposition about how long she was involved as a principle in Mr. Briggs’ law firm. Would this not be able to be determined with certainty from corporate records on file with the State? It would seem to be a matter of record, not merely assertion.
Thanks, Brad! Much clearer.
I’ll make a science writer out of you yet!
Any word on why the city refused to appoint an appraiser? That seems to be the other part of this episode: why hasn’t the appraisal process started for the direct payment? You seem to have much better sources within the city & especially the city attorney’s office than Hargrove or others.
From what the CA’s Office told me a while back, they wanted no part in the selecting of an appraiser and expected it to be worked out between Mr. Briggs and Sunroad. From what Sunroad’s Contreras-Rosati told me,
“The city did not feel they needed to involve themselves further. They’ve asked for updates…. Cory and us we just went back and forth for a while. There wasn’t anything really in particular that caused the delay.”
It seems odd, at least to me, that this process would end up taking nearly a year, and that the appraiser was selected the same week we started asking questions about it. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Thank you for your comment. To respond to your points:
1. Mr. Hargrove’s reporting is indeed helpful, as neither Mr. Briggs nor Ms. Cacciatore has responded to any of our questions or interview requests since February, yet they will speak to him. I think that if you’ll look deeper into what Mr. Briggs told Mr. Hargrove, you will find some glaring inconsistencies and frankly incorrect reporting — including the “total hours” Cacciatore worked for Helix as well as the explanation about the “mistake” in the deposition (in his story there is no mention of, or explanation why, Mr. Briggs echoed Cacciatore’s statement about the 20 years). The filings Briggs sent to Mr. Hargrove, which allegedly show Cacciatore as VP for one year, have not been shared with the California Secretary of State, California State Bar or anyone else for that matter. We have checked. The only place her name shows up as VP is in her own deposition, and on these mysterious business filings no one has seen except Mr. Hargrove. Also, Mr. Hargrove did not consult any independent third-party — a legal expert of any sort — to weigh in on his reporting. While he has poked fun at our using experts from outside of San Diego, it is an essential and frankly elementary practice in journalism to bring information to outside, unbiased experts, so they can lend credibility to your reporting. No journalist should serve as a mouthpiece for a source with a vendetta without, at the very least, checking to see if what they’re being told is the truth. That’s not even up for debate.
2. The allegations that we are being steered by the city attorney’s office is interesting, but ridiculous. In the five years this organization has been in existence, we’ve taken pride in our ethical standards, especially considering the surrounding journalism environment. No one seems to recognize that here. We’ve gone to great lengths to be as transparent as possible with not only this investigation but others as well. You will not find another news organization in southern California willing to spend the time and energy (and money) to provide readers with nearly every document behind every fact. It’s tedious and mind-numbing work, especially when we’ve just finished a story and could easily hit publish but instead, we spend hours uploading documents and creating hyperlinks so people will trust in our reporting. We also spend hours fact-checking every story, word by word and line by line. That is why we are not being sued for slander or libel. After all that, if readers still don’t believe in our reporting (and our reporters), there’s really not much more we can do to persuade them.
3. As to your question about how this all started: I’ve said it before on KPBS Round Table, I’ll say it again here: Brooke Williams is easily one of the best investigative reporters San Diego has ever seen. She had a dozen or so stories she wanted to work on. This one piqued my interest because our work typically revolves around politicians, but frankly there are other powerful people out there besides elected officials who we think need to be held accountable. Mr. Briggs is an extremely powerful and influential person in this city and has been for many years.
4. I honestly do not understand the allegations that Goldsmith leaked us anything. Goldsmith’s office provided us with a memo (the result of a public records act request which we have published and linked to many times) that mentioned Cacciatore’s role as Vice President. No matter how many times we asked, they would not tell us how they knew that information, only that it would become apparent soon enough. And less than a week later, the City Attorney’s Office went to court to ask a judge to unseal a deposition. Two and two together equaled Cacciatore being “Member #4.” Then, Cacciatore’s own lawyer, Marco Gonzalez, sent us her deposition (although now apparently there is an “amended” deposition where she corrects everything, although no one but Briggs has seen that either — not even the lawyers for the TMD or City Attorney’s office). It’s pretty cut and dry. Despite allegations about a leaked deposition, it should be pointed out again that her deposition is NOT protected under the protective order. She admitted she was not a member of San Diegans for Open Government, and the order only protects members.
I hope that answers some of your (and others) questions. I’m happy to engage further to the extent that I can, but please understand that this is an ongoing investigation and at times I am limited by what I can say. There are legal repercussions for every single word we publish (including comments).
Thank you,
-Brad
Mr. Racino: Thanks for your reply. I think you are wishing to reply to the reporting of Mr. Hargrove, which is fine. I don’t have independent knowledge of the veracity of his reporting (or yours). I am only happy to see more than one voice on this matter. I actually posed two questions. One is whether the April 17 article will be updated with corrections. The other is whether the status of Ms. Cacciatore as an officer of Mr. Briggs’ company is not a matter of record (i.e. filed with the state)? Her statements in a deposition are interesting, but not definitive in my view. Having been deposed many times, I can state that it is a standard that deposed persons are given an opportunity to review the deposition and submit corrections. This allows for correction of stenography errors, but also corrections of errors by the deposed and is normally part of the final record.
Mr. Brewster: I’m sorry if I didn’t make that point clear in my response.
Her being VP of Briggs Law Corp. exists on the record only in the deposition. Both Cacciatore and Mr. Briggs said it. And you’re correct — a person does have a chance to amend a deposition after the fact. This deposition was never amended, according to:
1. The deposition itself, sent to us by Cacciatore’s own lawyer. There is a spot for changes at the bottom and it is blank.
2. The lawyers for the opposing side who have no knowledge of any changes to this deposition. Here is a quote from Ryann Dunn, a lawyer with the TMD:
“We never got anything from them, either the deponent signature on the transcript or any changes to it. By the same code, after 30 days, you can treat an unsigned uncorrected transcript as signed”
Also, according to a public information officer at the Cal. State Bar, “We were able to look up the annual reports for Briggs Law Corp and Cory Briggs has been listed as the only officer from 2003-2014.” If Cacciatore was VP, there is an obligation to disclose it on these filings.
According to a public information officer at the Cal. Secretary of State, there is no mention of her name on any filings as recently as January 2015. Though if she was VP, there is not an obligation to disclose it on these filings.
Per your other question, we have included a link at the very top of the first Sunroad story to the new Sunroad story. I’m sure you can imagine that if we updated old stories with new information during every investigation we wouldn’t have time to do anything else — as we’re constantly learning new information. For example, now that Mr. Briggs has told the Reader that he and Cacciatore are indeed “married” in a secret way, there’s no way in hell I’m going back through 20+ stories to change the wording in all of them. But going forward, we will include that. Make sense?
Thanks again for your comments. Let me know if you have more questions, although I’m trying to take it easy this weekend and may not get back to you so quickly.
-Brad