HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem a - City Provision of Legal Defense to Council Member Danielson
DATE: June 14, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
By: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
SUBJECT: CITY PROVISION OF LEGAL DEFENSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER
DANIELSON CONCERNING QUO WARRANTO APPLICATION
Recommendation: Authorize the City to Defend Council Member
Danielson in this Matter
SUMMARY
On June 8, 2022, the Office of the Arcadia City Clerk received service of a Notice to
Michael Danielson (the Notice”) of Application for Leave to Sue (the “Application). The
Notice and Application were filed with the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
California by HQH Chinese American Equalization Association and Arcadia Voters Rights
Group (the “Relators”).
This process, also known as “quo warranto,” is required to be pursued by those
challenging as unlawful an individual occupying a public office. In such instances, an
application must first be filed with the Attorney General for permission to sue the office
holder. The Attorney General must then make certain findings in order to authorize such
a challenge to be filed in court. The defendant office holder has the right to file with the
Attorney General a response in opposition to such an application.
Separately, but in pending litigation involving the City which has direct relevance to the
Notice and Application, the Relators recently served the City with a Petition for Writ of
Mandate (the “Writ Petition”). The Writ Petition seeks a Court Order to compel the City
to rescind its Ordinance adopting a map for new Council districts (the “District Map
Ordinance”), which was required by the California Fair Maps Act. The Writ Petition also
seeks to have the Court invalidate the City Council’s appointment of Council Member
Danielson to fill a Council vacancy, and to invalidate all votes of Council Member
Danielson including his vote to adopt the District Map Ordinance.
Special Counsel selected by the City to represent the City in the Writ Petition has
indicated that a response to the Notice and Application must be filed on Council Member
Danielson’s behalf by June 21, 2022.
City Provision of Legal Defense to Council Member Danielson
June 14, 2022
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
The Application challenges the appointment of Council Member Danielson unanimously
made by the City Council (by a vote of 4-0). The Application does not allege that Council
Member Danielson personally acted improperly regarding his appointment. Rather than
resulting from an act of Council Member Danielson himself, the challenge in the
Application ultimately relates to an action taken by the City Council – that of appointing
him. Since the issues raised in the Writ Petition impact the question of causing rescission
of the District Map Ordinance, and include a challenge to Council Member Danielson’s
appointment, the Application is a matter of interest and concern to the City, not merely to
Council Member Danielson individually.
It should be emphasized how intertwined the Notice and Application are with the
previously filed Writ Petition. The facts and legal theories, and the City’s defenses, are
closely interrelated between the two. So this is a matter about which the City Council
may reasonably determine that the public interest and necessity merit the City providing
to Council Member Danielson the defense against the Application, since the defense in
the Writ Petition of the validity of the City Council’s action to adopt the District Map
Ordinance depend on it.
Under the specific facts involved in this quo warranto proceeding, as alleged in the
Application, and for the reasons set forth above, it would be reasonable and appropriate
for the City Council to authorize the provision of a legal defense to Council Member
Danielson in the quo warranto process, including responding to the Application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the
environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City to defend Council Member
Danielson in this matter, and to have Special Counsel representing the City in the Writ
Petition do so.