HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11a - Appointments to the Legal Affairs Subcommittee
DATE: June 2, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
By: Michael Bruckner, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING
APPOINTMENTS TO THE LEGAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
Recommendation: Disband the Legal Affairs Subcommittee
SUMMARY
The Legal Affairs Subcommittee was established by the City Council on May 17, 2016,
to provide additional review and insights into the City’s various legal matters without
delaying the work of the City Council as a whole. Appointments to the Legal Affairs
Subcommittee (“Committee”) are required to be made by the Arcadia City Council. At
the time of its creation, two members of the City Council, Council Member Beck and
Council Member Verlato, were practicing attorneys and, therefore, natural selections to
serve on the Committee. Newly-elected Council Member Cheng is also a practicing
attorney, which adds some complexity into the potential membership and continued
value of the Committee.
At the May 19, 2020, City Council Meeting, the City Council was expected to make
appointments to the Committee. At the meeting, Council Member Cheng requested that
staff revise the report to include a discussion of value and cost of the Legal Affairs
Committee. As shown below, the added costs of the Committee are fairly nominal and
there have been several advantages to having the Committee; however, it may be
advisable to disband the Committee now that there are three attorneys on the City
Council. It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council disband the Legal Affairs
Subcommittee.
BACKGROUND
The Legal Affairs Subcommittee was established on May 17, 2016, by the City Council.
The original mission of the Committee was to monitor the City’s legal affairs, including
litigation costs and bills, and report back to the City Council. On June 17, 2017, the
Discussion and Direction Regarding the Legal Affairs Subcommittee
June 2, 2020
Page 2 of 4
Committee met in open session to further define the Committee’s goals, and agreed
that discussion and resolution of specific litigation and oversight of litigation rests with
the full City Council. The Committee agreed that a written summary of the Committee’s
meetings would be prepared and given to the full City Council. Finally, the Committee
agreed that it would be helpful for the full City Council to review and discuss how the
Committee is functioning in accordance with the City Council’s direction. While this
never formally happened, the work of the Committee has been reviewed and discussed
during litigation discussions over the years.
On May 19, 2019, the City Council met to consider appointments to the Committee. At
that time, the City Council tabled the item at the request of Council Member Cheng in
order to provide greater details and analysis into the costs of the Committee.
At the budget study session on May 19, 2019, it was reported that the Committee met
nine (9) times; however, this number was calculated in error using the notices of
adjournment instead of the number of agendas, and has since been revised. Since its
inception, the Committee has actually met a total of eighteen (18) times reviewing the
City’s legal fees, budget, and litigation log of pending and active cases. Due to the
increase in the average number of annual meetings we now estimate that the cost for
the Committee is approximately $10,000 per year instead of the $6,500 originally
reported. The number of meetings by year is listed below:
Calendar Year Number of Meetings
2016 2
2017 8
2018 4
2019 3
2020 1
Over the years, the number of Committee meetings has been decreasing consistently.
The issues on the agendas range from presentations from firms regarding the potential
provision of special counsel litigation services like from the firms of Gilbert Kelly Crowley
& Jennett LLP and Collins Collins Muir & Stewart LLP or to discussion of pending cases
before the City. This includes Pink vs. City of Arcadia; Christle vs. City of Arcadia;
Kristen Olafson-Segal vs. City of Arcadia; Crosby vs. City of Arcadia; and Gavrity et. al.
vs. City of Arcadia, among others.
DISCUSSION
The Committee is currently comprised of Council Member Beck and Council Member
Verlato. There have been no new appointments to the Committee since it was created.
At the time of its creation, Council Member Beck and Council Member Verlato were the
only two members of the City Council who are attorneys. Newly-elected Council
Member Cheng is also an attorney and the City Council may want to consider his
Discussion and Direction Regarding the Legal Affairs Subcommittee
June 2, 2020
Page 3 of 4
background, experience, and expertise in determining the composition of the
Committee.
The Committee Members have also indicated that they believe there is value to
continuing the Committee for the foreseeable future, citing the benefit of having trial
attorneys with certain expertise in specific areas of the law to advise the City Attorney
and outside counsel on best practices and cost containment strategies related to current
or potential legal matters pending before the City. Further, the Committee believes that
their experience with other attorneys and firms provides them with valued insight as to
which potential attorneys or firms to retain to help control the costs of litigation. They
contend that the City has saved costs on legal fees by avoiding duplication of efforts,
unnecessary legal fees, and retention of cost-effective attorneys and firms as a result of
the Committee’s input.
While the number is difficult to quantify, the Committee has certainly saved the City
costs over the long-term by helping to devise successful legal strategies. These have
included settlements early in the process to avoid further legal costs, use of certain
experts to bolster the City’s defenses, and negotiation strategies to arrive at lower
overall figures. In addition, it was the recommendation of the Committee to increase the
number of firms on contract with the City to provide a wider variety of experts, which has
been highly advantageous in the past few years.
Alternatively, the work of the Committee may be seen as duplicative to the efforts of the
entire City Council when they meet in Closed Session with the City Attorney and outside
counsel to discuss current or potential legal matters pending before the City. While the
Committee serves in an advisory role, only the City Council as a whole can provide
formal direction on how to proceed with current or potential litigation and which outside
firms or attorneys to retain. While the Committee may help guide in this discussion, their
work is in addition to what occurs during Closed Session.
This issue is further exacerbated by having a third trial attorney on the City Council.
Having three engaged and detail-oriented Council Members with legal backgrounds
may better serve the City Council as a whole in Closed Session than discussing legal
issues under the auspices of a separate Committee, and then having the same or an
even more thorough discussion later with the entire body.
Finally, staff conducted a review of 24 cities in the San Gabriel Valley, including but not
limited to Alhambra, Claremont, Diamond Bar, Glendora, Monrovia, Pasadena, San
Gabriel, and Temple City, to see if they had a comparable Committee. None of the 24
cities surveyed had a Legal Affairs Committee.
Based on all of the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Legal Affairs Subcommittee has
been useful; however, given the change on the City Council, it is recommended that the
City Council disband the Committee at this time. Should a need arise in the future to
Discussion and Direction Regarding the Legal Affairs Subcommittee
June 2, 2020
Page 4 of 4
appoint a subcommittee on an ad hoc basis to provide special review and oversight of a
particular case, the City Council could do so at any time it wished.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that on an annual basis, the Legal Affairs Subcommittee costs are
approximately $10,000 per year and include the use of staff time to prepare public
notices, agendas, and minutes, along with the cost for the City Attorney and outside
counsel to prepare for and attend Committee meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed actions do not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can
be seen with certainty that they will have no impact on the environment. Thus, these
matters are exempt under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council determine that this project is exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and disband the Legal Affairs
Subcommittee.