Loading...
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.