Why did they try to recall Dianne Harkey

The proponents of the Diane Harkey Recall were diverse. They were women and men; liberals and conservatives; Republicans and Democrats. We share one common belief. Our elected leaders should be ethical leaders who avoid conflicts of interest.

Rewarding Campaign Contributors

During Diane’s campaign for State Senate in 2006, she held a fundraiser at the historic Doheny House. Her host was a convicted felon seeking city approval to subdivide the property. Despite an obvious conflict of interest, Diane helped the developer obtain approvals and with Harkey’s help, he is moving ahead with plans for the house and grounds, including possible demolition of the historic house.

At a meeting of residents adjacent to the Doheny House, at the home of Tony and Caroline Cooke, Harkey emphasized her close 30 year friendship with the developer, and completely misstated his record.  Recently at another meeting at City Hall about the Doheny House, Harkey told one resident that she didn't even know him.

Bullying Property Owners

Diane intervened in a private civil matter. In their own home, she bullied residents Robert and Colleen Traphangen into signing away their legal rights on a letter she prepared herself to benefit the owners of the St. Regis Hotel. The St. Regis owners frequently have business before the city and were significant donors to Harkey’s campaigns. When Harkey should be neutral in matters between the city and the hotel she has basically acted as an agent of the St. Regis Hotel. These actions were highly unethical.

State Ethics Violations

The Conflict of Interest Office with the California Fair Political Practices Commission issued a ruling (FPPC File No. A-05-032, April 27, 2005) that Diane Harkey should completely abstain from decision-making on issues concerning her family's several apartment houses in Town Center. Their report to Diane: "you may not participate in or vote" on matters concerning the Town Center because of financial interest. What did she do? She ignored the ruling and participated anyway. Sources: West Law On-Line Library, Document 2005 WL 10108891, Minutes of meetings of Town Center and City Council. The Harkey campaign consultants have recently made public a previously undisclosed memo of the City Attorney of Dana Point providing Harkey a legal opinion, regardless of the FPPC ruling, that she still had a right to address the Council, even if she had a conflict of interest, under one of the exceptions to the general rule, namely Commission Regulation 18702.4(b)(1)(A). The memo was dated May 25, 2005. This "personal interest" exception is limited, and requires that for the elected official to speak, they must have equal standing exactly as a member of the public to comment. However, when Harkey actually addressed the Council at the October 25, 2007 meeting, she spoke at length - almost three times as much time (or more) than that offered to members of the general public. This extension of time was unusual and set her apart from the general public. Harkey’s extended comments were the functional equivalent of comments made in her official capacity, which would be illegal. Under these factual circumstances, she is subject to a finding of violation of the conflict of interest rules. Further, an October 14, 2005 email from Harkey to a Dana Point resident states, "Let’s drop this and move on to the really big issues – like Town Center and election 2006. We were on the same side." Such an email may be seen as evidence of Harkey's intent to encourage grass-roots lobbying, and a use her official position to influence the outcome of a council decision where she had a financial conflict of interest.

Kick-Backs Required?

In the Capistrano Beach home of Tony and Caroline Cooke, Harkey told residents that the reason they could not obtain construction variances awarded others was "because you didn't grease the right palms".

Skipping Out on Dana Point at First Opportunity

When Diane ran for council, she broke all council spending records for Dana Point and spent $170,000 to be elected.  She claimed to have “no grandiose plans to run for higher office.” But months later, she spent over $1,135,000 (Secretary of State Filings) in a losing campaign for State Senate, ignoring her job here.

Has Used Profanity with Residents

In this committee's opinion, Diane Harkey suffers from serious character flaws.  Among them is her apparent inability to represent our whole community in a temporate and moderate manner, especially in dealing with Council colleagues she disagrees with.  An example is her treatment of Council colleague Lara Anderson, whom she sometimes refers to in conversations with residents as a "bitch."  Much worse Harkey profanities in conversations with residents and in council meetings, (both open and closed sessions), have been documented by the committee. 

Extensive Tax Liens

Harkey's businesses have been levied 14 times for unpaid taxes in amounts as large as $49,119. You should see the "necessities" she bought when she was behind on her taxes. This information came out during her campaign but we elected her because she claimed she could do the job. But all she’s done is acted maliciously toward us, divided us and failed to lead us in an ethical manner. Read More