Around San Diego's city hall, it's hard to argue with an institution called the "Pro Kids Golf Academy and Learning Center." And it's even harder to argue with Ernie Wright, a former Charger who says he founded Pro Kids eight years ago "in order to give our neighborhood kids a fighting chance at navigating this bumpy road we call life." Wright's nonprofit academy leases the Colina Park golf course from the city and uses it to teach golf to children from the surrounding, predominantly poor and minority neighborhoods. "I've been chairman since we started. We now have over 7000 kids in this area who are card-carrying Pro Kids golf academy members," Wright says. Padres owner John Moores kicked in a million dollars to start a $25 million endowment fund, he adds. The Building Industry Association contributed $1.3 million worth of labor and materials for a new $1.7 million, two-story clubhouse featuring executive offices and a computer-training room.

"Thanks to the great game of golf, these kids aren't on the street anymore," Wright says. "They are exposed to new challenges and opportunities. We teach them skills to take on the world. If it wasn't for this program, a lot of these kids wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be hanging around on the streets."

But lately Wright finds himself answering questions about campaign contributions made by himself and others associated with Pro Kids and whether the money is being used to buy influence with the city council, which controls the awarding of federal block-grant funds to local charities such as Pro Kids. Over the years, that convoluted, secrecy-cloaked block-grant awards procedure, critics say, has been corrupted by councilmembers' increasing use of the process to raise money for themselves.

Word of the Pro Kids–related contributions comes at an awkward time for the city council, which is considering adoption of a new 44-page conflict-of-interest law proposed by the city's Ethics Commission, created by the council largely in response to the Valerie Stallings–John Moores influence-buying scandal. The ordinance would ban solicitation of campaign funds from council appointees to city boards and commissions and bar former city employees, including councilmembers, from lobbying at city hall for a year after leaving city employment.

The law would also forbid a city official from using "his or her position or prospective position, or the power or authority of his or her office or position, in any manner intended to induce or coerce any person to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of value which shall accrue to the private advantage, benefit, or economic gain, of the City Official or his or her immediate family." The council has balked at those tough restrictions and had delayed further consideration of the ordinance until April 16. Meantime, their fundraising proceeds full speed ahead.

Since last March, according to city campaign-disclosure records, at least 16 individuals with links to Wright and Pro Kids have contributed a total of $8100 to help retire the 2000 campaign debt of city councilman Jim Madaffer. Most of the contributions came in on the same date, according to the disclosures: December 13, 2001.

The bulk of Madaffer's debt is owed to the councilman himself, and therefore, much of the money he collects has been going directly into his own pocket. A former legislative aide to ex-councilwoman Judy McCarty, Madaffer's campaign reports show he sunk more than $25,000 of his savings into his campaign effort and has been paying it back since the November 2000 election.

At the end of the most recent disclosure period, covering the six months through the close of 2001, Madaffer still owed himself about $13,000. During the same period, the Madaffer campaign paid the Primacy Group, a political consulting firm owned by Madaffer's consultant Larry Remer, $16,500. The Chase Company, owned by Madaffer fundraising consultant Nancy Chase, received $9750, and Aimee Faucett, a Madaffer campaign aide, got an $8000 "bonus." At the end of the year, the campaign still owed the Primacy Group $9914.

That Madaffer's campaign debt has been steadily shrinking is due in no small part to money that Wright freely boasts he has raised on behalf of the first-term Seventh District councilman. Those associated with Pro Kids who have given the maximum $500 contribution to retire Madaffer's debt included Wright himself, Margaret Wright, Ernest Wright II, and Victoria Wright. Former Charger Doug Wilkerson and his wife Deborah also gave $500, as did a raft of Pro Kids executives and directors and their spouses, including president Nicholas Krnich and vice president Donald Odom. Other donors included Deborah Keough, listed as the chief financial officer of Wright's EHW Management Corp., and Michel Anderson, identified by Wright as his lobbyist.

"Jim Madaffer, as you know, is the city councilman for the district that we're in, City Heights, and before that he was chief of staff for Judy McCarty, and Judy and Jim have been absolutely super supporters of our program there in City Heights," explains Wright. "We operate a city-owned golf course, and they have been very helpful in our applications for block-grant monies to improve that golf course and that facility for kids in that neighborhood.

"And we feel that, since they've supported us in what we were doing to help the kids in that community, that we should support Mr. Madaffer in his efforts to seek election. He had to run for office, and he has debts to pay off, and as with any elected official, if we can help, we help." As for the fact that most of the money is going directly to Madaffer personally, Wright says, "He had the courage of his convictions, so he put his own money down. He ought to be able to get it back if he wins."

Wright says he can't remember how he found out about Madaffer's post-election fundraising needs or his campaign debt. "Maybe I asked him. Maybe his assistant tapped me. Maybe my lobbyist told me about it. I can't recall. I'm always looking out to help my friends, though, so it probably was my idea to pitch in with a little extra."

Madaffer himself, who was reached on his cell phone as he arrived for an event at San Diego State University's Cox Arena last Thursday, also says he doesn't recall the specifics of how the Pro Kids group came to donate money to him more than a year after his campaign ended. "I made lots of calls. I can't remember. When you say a group of folks, I can't say yes, I can't say no. There's probably a lot of people from Pro Kids who gave money, I'm not sure.

"The best way to answer your question is that there are many people that were probably solicited for funds. For you to ask me right now, as I'm standing outside a restroom, if I remember one particular group or individual, I can't answer that. I guess what I can do is check and let you know."

In any case, Madaffer insists, there was no linkage or coercion involving the contributions and his support of the Pro Kids block-grant proposal. "No, no, no. I've supported Pro Kids for years. They're a great program. Any program that helps the youth of San Diego is a program that I'm interested in helping out."

He adds that he was also not sure of the source of the personal funds he loaned to his campaign. "The thing I do remember is probably from my American Express investment brokerage account, where that money came from."

Wright says he has been successfully working city hall's block-grant system for years on behalf of Pro Kids. Under a city council policy adopted in June 1996, the council splits the annual federal block-grant allotment into two portions. Forty percent is earmarked for citywide projects, such as street and sewer improvements. The remaining 60 percent is parceled out by council district, allowing each councilmember to wield virtual veto power over which organizations and projects receive funding.

Insiders know it therefore helps for groups to maintain a friendly relationship with each council representative. Outspoken political foes of incumbent councilmembers need not bother to apply, council observers who are familiar with the process agree. The block-grant awards, coupled with election of councilmembers by district, enacted by San Diego voters in 1988, has given individual councilmembers enormous power within their districts, which is leveraged by them to gain favor with various constituencies. The competition for funding is intense. Last year, more than 200 groups, seeking a total of $74 million, vied for a share of the more than $11 million of new block-grant money distributed by the council.

Over the years, Wright says, Pro Kids has received at least a half million dollars of city funding, and as a result of his lobbying efforts, he has become a skilled grants seeker. This year, he says, Pro Kids is taking its case for funding to two other councilmembers as well as Madaffer.

"We've made block-grant applications to three different city council people because of the area we serve in their districts. We have made them to Toni Atkins and George Stevens and Jim Madaffer. They are all up for consideration; they won't vote on them until April or May.

"The whole is about $180,000 from all three different districts. That would be to improve the golf course. The golf course had not had any substantial work done on it in many, many years, and what we want to do is to upgrade the facility so that the children who play in our program will have a competitive golf course, so when they go other places they will be competitive.

"We have raised through the Building Industry Association shares for kids; we raised over $1.7 million in private funds and built the brand-new clubhouse and learning center on that program. So we have not just been asking for money from the city. Over 125 businesses donated money, time, materials, and work to build a $1.7 million clubhouse and computer learning center at private expense. So we think we have a very good public/private relationship going on here."

According to figures supplied by Wright, Pro Kids receives a total of about $1.1 million of revenue each year in grants, donations, and income from special events such as golf tournaments and dinners. Government's contribution is $265,000, and individuals and foundations contribute $507,000. The group spends $537,261 on salaries, with the balance going toward items such as golf-course maintenance, travel, scholarships, and fundraising overhead.

The $179,400 in block-grant funds requested in the currently pending block-grant application would be used to pay for part of the $931,500 golf-course renovation project, Wright says. In addition to that block-grant contribution, another $250,000 of block-grant money left over from previous years would be used, as well as a $200,000 grant from the United States Golf Association and $127,000 worth of artificial turf from the Nike corporation.

Wright, who has become a wealthy man by pioneering "commercial corrections facilities" — otherwise known as private prisons — outlined his personal history during testimony in a 1997 court hearing: "I arrived in San Diego in 1961 with the San Diego Chargers, played nine years with San Diego and four years with Cincinnati," Wright told a hearing officer. "I maintained my home here in San Diego the whole time I was in Cincinnati, and my family and I commuted — not commuted, spent half the year in Ohio and half a year here.

"After my playing career, I got into the agent business. I was an agent for professional athletes for over 17 years and, in 1986, started Pacific Furlough Facility. And the purpose of that was to house and rehabilitate low-risk offenders assigned by the court in lieu of serving time in the county jail.

"Subsequently, we obtained a federal contract with the Bureau of Prisons, and we've been — in fact, we're in our seventh year of contracting with the Bureau of Prisons. We also work with the INS, Border Patrol, Federal Pre-Trial. July 1, two years ago, we successfully bid the County Work Furlough Facility for the Board of Supervisors, and we are operating that facility under the guidance and jurisdiction of the San Diego Probation Department.

"And currently we are in the process of getting the City of San Diego to approve a new 256-bed detention rehabilitation facility in the Midway area." In a recent interview, Wright said that bid has since been turned down by the previous city council.

Wright's career has not been without its own controversies. Just last month, former Deputy District Attorney Peter J. Longanbach, convicted of felony grand theft for using county office workers to further his personal real estate business, was sentenced to perform 350 hours of community service at Pro Kids, teaching golf and organizing a charity golf tournament there.

After a public outcry ensued, a week later Wright announced that the deal was off. "We don't want any felons dealing with our kids," he told the Union-Tribune. "The board felt that it might set a bad example for someone who has pleaded guilty to a felony to do their time at a youth program." Today, Wright claims that the Pro Kids board was not in on the arrangement to begin with and had never made the offer.

Wright also had an uncomfortable brush of his own with the law. It began on the evening of April 25, 1997, as he and his wife were returning to their Carlsbad home following a meal at Scalini's, a Del Mar restaurant.

"We were supposed to arrive at Scalini's around 8:00," he later testified. "I got there at about 8:30, and she was about the same time because she's always late, but anyway, I think we left Scalini's around 10:20, 10:30, and proceeded down 5 to La Costa Boulevard. I was in my car. She was following me. We had our mobile phones on, we were talking.

"And then we turned right [on] La Costa Boulevard, we hadn't gone too far and she said, ‘I think there's a patrol car behind me.' And the lights came on.

"I said, do what they tell you to do. I can't turn around here, and I doubt if they're going to stop you. This road is bad. So I proceeded all the way down to El Camino Real and made a left turn on El Camino Real and pulled into El Camino Real Shopping Center. She told me on the phone that they'd stopped her. They got on speaker and said, keep driving and we'll tell you when to stop. So I waited. The light had changed. I made my turn. They came up. I saw her turn on her signal and turn left and then it went off.

"I thought they were going to stop on the right side, but she pulled into the plaza there and they followed her. The car followed her. I sat there for a minute, hoping it would just be a routine stop and they'd let her go.

"I saw an officer — it was too dark for me at that time to tell what agency because there's a Sheriff, Carlsbad Police, and Highway Patrol all in that area — approach the car, lean over, and have a conversation, eventually got documents. And when they got her out of the car, then I opened my door, shut it, and started walking over to where she and the officer were. And it's less than 100 yards. It was kind of a long walk. I'd walked over half the way before I said, ‘Officer?' And he said, stay where you are. And I said I want to talk to you, that's my wife. And I kept walking. And at that time Officer Salas came up and around the car in order to talk to me, and then he stopped and we started our conversation."

Soon afterwards, according to the testimony, Wright found himself in handcuffs and on his way to the jail in Vista, suspected of driving under the influence. He refused to take a breath test.

"I was asking the officer under what legal right did he have to arrest me on a DUI, when he had no probable cause to arrest me on a DUI, when he had no probable cause to stop me, because he did not stop me. And when I was told I would be arrested for DUI, my statement to the officer was, ‘Well, we'll have to let the courts decide this.'

"Very simply, I was extremely agitated; however, in working with law enforcement agencies for the last 11 years, I tried to maintain the best professional decorum I could, respect for the badge. Knowing that they are trained to control the situation, I was trying my best to make sure and ensure him that that was the situation. I disagreed with them on why I was being arrested, and the officer put the handcuffs on me and I went with him.

"I was agitated. I thought I wasn't being given an opportunity to discuss or talk about things. I didn't feel that I was a threat. I made no hostile moves or yelled or anything, and I just — I was just a little agitated that I was being treated like a common criminal."

Because Wright refused a Breathalyzer test, his license was automatically suspended for a year, from September 11, 1997, through September 11, 1998. In an attempt to get the suspension lifted, he took his case to court, where prosecutors weighed in with their version of the incident.

"Petitioner had been lawfully arrested, and that Petitioner had been admonished that refusal to submit to a chemical test or failure to complete a test would result in a suspension of his driving privilege for one year or a revocation for two or three years," according to a declaration filed by state deputy attorney general David M. Tiede. "Petitioner refused to submit to a chemical test after being requested to do so by a peace officer.

"On April 25, 1997, at approximately 10:50 p.m., California Highway Patrol Officer Salas observed Petitioner driving on El Camino Real at La Costa Avenue, stop and exit his car, and approach Officer Salas after Officer Salas had pulled over the Petitioner's wife, who was driving a separate car.

"Upon contact, Officer Salas observed ‘strong' objective symptoms of intoxication: bloodshot/watery eyes, an odor of an alcoholic beverage on Petitioner's breath, slurred speech, and an unsteady gait. After Petitioner's failure of several field sobriety tests, Petitioner was arrested at 11:03 p.m.

"Petitioner was admonished concerning the consequences of refusal to submit to a chemical test but refused to submit to a test. Petitioner was then given an order of suspension/revocation."

"Petitioner was requested an administrative hearing which took place on July 25, 1997.

"Officer Salas testified that immediately after the arrest and placing the handcuffs on Petitioner, he informed Petitioner that ‘by California law he's required to submit to a chemical test and that test could entail either blood, breath, or urine.' Officer Salas first informed petitioner at that time that a refusal to submit to the chemical tests would result in the revocation of his driving privileges for a year. At that time Petitioner first told Officer Salas that he wasn't going to take a chemical test.

"Upon arriving at the jail in Vista, at approximately 11:39 p.m., Officer Salas read Petitioner the admonishment verbatim from the back of DMV form DS 367 regarding Chemical Test Refusal. Officer Salas then asked, respectively, whether Petitioner would submit to a breath test, a urine test, or a blood test. Petitioner responded by saying ‘no' to each of the three, separate, chemical test requests made by Officer Salas.

"Petitioner makes numerous arguments in an attempt to establish that he either did not hear, could not read, or otherwise could not understand the admonition. Whether Petitioner did or did not actually hear or understand the admonition, due to the drinking that left him with objective symptoms of intoxication, his ability or inability to read without glasses, or because of legitimate concerns about his wife, who was also in custody with her own set of problems, is not the point. The real question is whether, after the proper admonishment, Petitioner refused the test."

Concluded Tiede, "Since Petitioner was properly admonished, his refusal to submit to a chemical test warrants the suspension of his driving privileges." The court sided with the state and refused to order that Wright's license be returned to him until after the end of the original yearlong suspension.

Today, Wright says he has become more philosophical about the incident. "The Highway Patrol never saw me operating a vehicle, they just saw me get out of a parked car, and one thing led to another, and that was the upshot of it," he says. "I think driving is a privilege extended by the state, and if they feel that they should take my license for a year, that's what they do. I have no problem with that."