Op-Ed: Encinitas urged to probe Shaffer, ignore bigger questions

When the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office charged Encinitas Councilmember Luke Shaffer with felony assault last summer, the decision immediately raised questions — not only about his conduct, but about whether the response matched the facts.

Shaffer’s name and face were splashed across newspapers throughout the county, including the front page of The Coast News.

After a preliminary hearing and witness testimony, three separate judges concluded that the curbside trash-bin dispute over a parking space never warranted the legal sledgehammer of a felony prosecution.

A home security video of the incident did not provide the public with a clear picture of wrongdoing: No crushing of hands. No “weaponized” trash bin. No evidence to support the dramatic allegations outlined in the DA’s filings.

As a public official with no criminal record, Shaffer agreed to a diversion program, anger management counseling and community service.

Now that the case has been resolved, the question is no longer whether Shaffer will face consequences for his actions. He did. The real question becomes whether the DA exercised sound judgment by pushing a felony charge when, by all accounts, there was no “there, there.”

And yet, in a recent op-ed, “Will Encinitas probe official accused of threat? Or sweep it under the rug?,” the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board urges the city of Encinitas to launch an ethics probe into the embattled councilman because, in their view, the justice system produced a “much less tidy resolution.” (An interesting way to describe due process.)

Accountability demands it, they argue, but they presume wrongdoing on Shaffer’s part, despite his continuing assertions to the contrary. What the editorial proposes is not clarity or healing, but prolonging a spectacle that continues to divide the community.

Furthermore, the Union-Tribune editorial board sidesteps a central issue of public oversight: Why did the District Attorney’s Office continue to pursue a felony charge with such flimsy evidence in the first place?

The UT editorial board appears reluctant to question the decision-making that turned a local quarrel into a headline-grabbing criminal case. Instead, the board likens Shaffer’s dust-up to that of disgraced Poway Councilmember Tony Blain and former San Diego mayor Bob Filner, painting a dire portrait of civic leadership run amok in Encinitas.

To compare is not to reason.

The UT op-ed then offers a curious reading of Judge Saba Sheibani’s ruling.

“Sheibani (dismissed the misdemeanor abuse of office charge) not because she doubted Shaffer had made the threat. Instead, she said there was no evidence he had acted on it,” the UT editorial board writes.

This makes it seem like Shaffer got away with something. To be clear, the judge rejected the allegation that Shaffer threatened to misuse his office, finding no evidence to meet the legal threshold for the charge. The judge’s tossing of the misdemeanor count showcases yet another example of questionable prosecutorial judgment: Why pursue an allegation the facts did not support?

The UT editorial board also cites a previous quote from Mayor Bruce Ehlers to attack the “appalling” suggestion that this prosecution may have been politically motivated, as if the mere notion were palace intrigue in a tinfoil dunce hat.

The UT editorial board claims that Ehlers “suggested, without the slightest evidence, that Shaffer may have been the victim of ‘a political hatchet job’ orchestrated by the District Attorney’s Office.”

The assertion is problematic. The UT editorial board selectively took a portion of Ehlers’ remarks, stripped them of context, and then went further by fabricating an allegation he never made — namely, that the DA’s Office was involved in a political conspiracy against Shaffer. Ehlers made no such claim.

The Union-Tribune originally quoted Ehlers in an Aug. 29 story as saying, “I think that we’ll get the facts, and then we will learn whether this is a political hatchet job or a real issue. Time will tell.”

The suggestion of a DA-orchestrated “hatchet job” is not his words, but the editorial board’s invention.

“I feel the Union-Tribune’s editorial misrepresented what I said,” Ehlers told The Coast News. “They completely changed the meaning. What I said was that it was either a political hatchet job or a real issue — and in the end, it turned out there was nothing there. So in all likelihood, this is a political hatchet job, and it continues with their editorial. And now, of course, they’re trying to implicate me in it. Can you tell it’s an election year coming up?”

The commentary also lacks any curiosity about the players involved. Why did the victim in this case immediately retain a local environmental attorney who has publicly expressed his disagreement with the council’s policies and who promptly issued public statements (on his client’s behalf) calling for Shaffer’s resignation even before his arraignment?

Did they know that the same attorney also represents the developer behind the controversial Clark project, a Leucadia housing development currently in litigation and existential limbo thanks to Shaffer and the current council? Of course, all this could mean nothing, but it’s part of the story that was completely ignored.

The editorial further warns the city not to “sweep it under the rug,” but this ignores the fact that the case was thoroughly scrutinized, debated and settled in open court. Simply because the UT editorial board dislikes the outcome does not entitle them to an extrajudicial path toward their own vision of justice.

Shaffer’s attorney, Isaac Blumberg, told The Coast News that the Union-Tribune editorial board’s recent commentary presented only one side of the dispute:

“The version of events described in the recent UT article and op-ed reflects only Mr. (Declan) Caulfield’s perspective, and Councilmember Shaffer has consistently and vigorously disputed that characterization of the incident,” Blumberg said. “Importantly, after hearing Mr. Caulfield testify at the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed the charge that depended on the claim that Mr. Shaffer used or referenced his role as a council member. The court also reduced the felony allegation to a misdemeanor, signaling that the evidence did not support the original felony accusations.

“Because proceedings are suspended while he completes misdemeanor diversion, Mr. Shaffer cannot litigate the underlying facts in the press,” Blumberg continued. “But it would be inaccurate to assume that Mr. Caulfield’s testimony is an uncontested or complete version of events.”

We shouldn’t condone Shaffer’s conduct on that July afternoon. The exchange of harsh words and the display of temper were poor representations of leadership. Shaffer should know better. And if he didn’t, the misdemeanor diversion process is intended to ensure the lesson is learned.

At some point, however, a community must ask whether continuing this crusade against Shaffer serves the public good — or whether Encinitas would be better served by fairness, restraint and perspective in moving forward.

Perhaps the UT editorial board should do the same, rather than using its platform to advocate for the councilman’s removal through civic means. Maybe the board should aim its scrutiny where it belongs: on the prosecutorial judgment that turned a regrettable misdemeanor spat into a spectacle in the first place.

Jordan P. Ingram is the managing editor of The Coast News.

* The author writes this commentary in a personal capacity. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper, publisher or its staff.