City Legal Services: During my years as a Council observer, I observed the City Attorney's public performance and I saw things I didn't like. When I asked if he ever got a performance review, I was told that the Council didn't think it was necessary since he'd been there for a long time and they were familiar with his work [paraphrasing Jim Bond, who was mayor at that time]. Since the Council only directly has hiring and supervisory authority over the City Manager and the City Attorney, I thought it was important that we understand how the city's legal needs are being met, and consider if our public funds are buying the best services possible. Early in my tenure I helped create a performance review process and require that the City Attorney and City Manager have written performance plans approved by the Council. I also asked that we review the scope of City legal services - the role of the City Attorney and the use of outside special counsel. The item was on our agenda on Oct. 23 with a report prepared by our City Risk Manager. With only two public speakers and not much Council discussion, no action was taken by the Council in response to the report.Some council members have, in the past, used the excuse "I'm just one vote" to justify going along with the majority and rubber-stamping the Stocks-Bond-Dalager-Vina-Sabine status quo. We hope Lisa Shaffer's actions last night will encourage other council members to start showing some leadership.
Glenn Sabine has been the City Attorney since 1999, and it seemed to me to be good practice to see what else the market might offer 14 years later. The arrangement we have with him might be the most cost-effective, and it might not be - we won't know if we don't solicit other options. We provide some perks to our City Attorney that other cities don't offer, but we pay lower hourly rates. There was not enough information in the report to assess the quality of the service we provide, and no benchmarks like cost per capita (one would assume that smaller cities would have lower costs), or work volume (how many lawsuits resolved, how many contracts reviewed, etc.) I made a motion that we develop a request for proposals and solicit bids for City legal services. Nobody seconded my motion, so no action was taken.
I did not talk to my Council colleagues about this item before our meeting, so I didn't know whether anyone would support the idea. And while I still think it's good practice to periodically recompete long-term contracts, I understand why my colleagues did not support my proposal.
Here's where the progress idea comes in - prior to the November 2012 election, there had been no public discussion of the City's legal services since Mr. Sabine was awarded a contract as City Attorney. There had been no formal performance plan and no regular evaluation process. Earlier this year the full Council agreed on the evaluation process and directed the City Attorney and the City Manager to develop a performance plan for Council review and approval. Since this effort began, I believe the City Attorney has been more responsive, and even initiated a monthly status update to report on current court cases or legal issues. That's progress.
My colleagues said that they wanted to complete the performance planning and evaluation cycle before considering whether any change is called for in how we get our legal services. Fair enough. A year from now, I will probably try again, and see where my colleagues are on this matter. We could go through this process and end up with the same City Attorney - if so, at least we'll know that we have made a choice based on a real comparison across different law firms and haven't just been on autopilot because of a decision made in 1999.
So, I tried to deliver on an issue I talked about in my campaign - the need to recompete our City Attorney contract. I was not able to get support from the rest of the Council to take that action. Nonetheless, I believe that I have helped to shine some light on the role of the City Attorney, to challenge the Council to take seriously our responsibility to oversee and direct the City Attorney, and to hold the City Attorney accountable in a formal evaluation process. That's progress in my view.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
One woman with courage makes a majority
From Lisa Shaffer's latest e-mail newsletter:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the path to redemption.
ReplyDeleteI think that by shining light on this that it might have the impact of him watching what he does more closely. However, it was a poor example that they other 4 council members made to not even consider looking at the competition. Maybe if they were using their own money instead of ours they would not be so quick to have these long-term contracts with people.
DeleteShaffer is a lost cause. Cut her loose. She's just trying to cover her ass. Won't work. All she's really saying is. See everyone I tried, it's not my fault. Bullshit. She didn't call for a vote to dismiss the city atty just for a review. She wasn't seconded which tells you how gutless the others are.
ReplyDeleteTime to clean house and vote them all out.
Pots and pans.
Pots and pans.
Drive them out of office.
And replace with who, because that's always the question, isn't It? Somebody has to be in there, after all...
DeleteI have not given Shaffer much in the way of kudos in the past. But, after she asked for a request for proposals for other attorneys to bid on our City contract, I saw a person who was committed to keeping her promises. I wrote here a thank you email after I came home. She responded with collegiality and was quite cordial. Perhaps she has seen things that have upset her enough to finally do something about it. Neither Teresa or Tony, who I thought were usually with her on on issues, and vice versa, would not second her motion. The City attorney has to be given 6 months notice so no one could have fired him last night, except for cause. That would have cost us a lot of money if they had done that. However, as Donna Westbrook said, they could start the RFP process tonight and let it be known to Glenn that they would be looking at other possible City Attorneys, and 6 months from now let him go. However, as we all know, that did not happen. I applaud what Lisa did, and I don't think she did it to cover her ass. I cannot help but wonder if she didn't think Barth would second her motion, as it has been no secret Barth didn't care for Sabine. The questions Mark Muir asked were the ones that lead to provoking Sabine. I don't think Mark was deliberately trying to do that, but Sabine must have felt picked on to come out with so much vitriolic jibber jabber. And, that is why it was. At one point he stated he was so tired of hearing about the tattoo appeal. To be honest, I cannot remember the last time it was brought up by me, or anyone else, so I was rather surprised at his statement regarding it. Then he made up a plausible story. However, it was not a true account of how it went down. That is a problem people. When City Attorneys get away with that kind of crap, it is a thing to deal with as soon as possible before everyone drinks the Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteNo one should have 6 months to clean out their desk.
DeletePots and pans.
Pots and pans.
Drive them out.
Honestly he has so much self-packed baggage, Dr. Lorri, I would not call any of his stories "plausible," although agree that he does get away with it. I don't know anyone who has watched or engaged with Sabine over the years who thinks he should be employed here.
ReplyDeleteBarth is a cop-out; Kranz is a sell-out and Gaspar is a ditz.... Muir is fine with the status quo - he's part of the million-dollar pension over reach club - WHAT?! ME WORRY? Only if Encinitas bankrupts.....
ReplyDeleteI was told by a few people that Lisa Shaffer is trying to get her friend from BB&K (law firm) hired. If this is true, this would be another ETHICAL failure on her part. Mrs. Shaffer is this true? By the way, this is the same firm that represented the City of Bell's legal fiasco.
ReplyDelete........and it starts.......again........praise and hope that she has forsaken the dark side only to be brought down by the force of rumor and innuendo......why, why,why?
DeleteWell, name the friend then if you're going to go down that path. Agree it would be an ethical bad move, but you really need to have back-up on that if you're going to throw it out there. Kudos to someone like Dr. Lori, who got up and spoke on a piece of city business and tried to make a chance, instead of just stoking rumours and putting out gossip.
DeleteDear Lisa,
ReplyDeletePlease don't denigrate our involvement by saying there were "only two public speakers." Two of us gave Lorri Greene time donations, as you should know. Also, many people stayed home to watch the World Series. It seems more than coincidental that this item was scheduled when few would be likely to be in attendance, after the Little League team members left.
Also, as I told you, I spoke to attorney who was present for Agenda Item 10C, in the parking lot after we left the Council Meeting. He completely agreed with what I have now posted on Encinitas Undercover:
There is no reason that the public could not be part of an open evaluation, including an online survey of legal services as initially planned. Confidential personnel records can be separate from public documents or comments, although they are both related to evaluations.
There could have been both a closed session evaluation, and an open session opportunity for public input on July 11, when the secret Council Meeting evaluations were done.
*******************
I wrote Lisa, separately, initially, to thank her for her motion, for being willing to "stand alone." However, I sent the above e-mail letter in response to her latest newsletter.
The subcommittee meetings set up with Lisa Shaffer and Councilmember Kristin Gaspar were NOT well noticed. At the initial subcommittee meeting, the public was promised we would have an opportunity to weigh in through an online "survey" of legal services.
Jace Schwarm, of Risk Management, and Kristin Gaspar, knocked this down, at the second subcommittee meeting, which I didn't know took place, until after it happened. I did listen to the audio recording, and asked for verification through the City's high-priced "employment" consultant law firm, Liebert, Casdidy & Whitmore, of any case law or statutory code that would prevent the city from soliciting public input through an online survey re citizen satisfaction with our city manager and/or city attorney's services.
No such documentation was ever provided, as there is none. At the second subcommittee meeting re City Attorney and City Manager evaluations, Jace Schwarm only stated that Sabine and Vina have a "Constitutional right to privacy."
Although both Sabine and Vina have a right to privacy of their CONFIDENTIAL personnel records, there is NOTHING to prevent a public survey that would be related to their review and evaluations, but NOT a part of their confidential records. The attorney with whom I spoke completely agreed with that. Sabine and Vina were being "protected" from public opinion of them. In the second City Attorney and City Manager subcommittee evaluation meeting, with no members of the public present, Kristin Gaspar said that her executive officers are not subject to public evaluation for their reviews. Kristin works for a PRIVATE, family owned corporation. Sabine and Vina work for the PUBLIC, or should. They are not supposed to be "yes-men" for Council, with their only reviews and decisions regarding compensation done in secret meetings.
There was a breakdown in the public trust, from the beginning of the process of "analysis of legal services," as well as City management services. Council violated the Brown Act, when Mayor Barth reported out of closed session on July 11, the Council Meeting when Prop A was Certified, that Vina got an excellent, Council supported Sabine, and both contracts would be renewed without change in compensation. According to the Brown Act, compensation of Executive officers, MUST not be discussed in Special Meeting closed sessions, period.
I don't think the World Series is that big of a draw, especially when the closest team is in the midwest. Monday night football between two garbage teams would have a bigger pull. Let's not go into conspiracy land because there was a World Series game on. There were only two public speakers, using the time of 4. There weren't many people there period, heck I was not there. People have no excuse on this one or any other meeting if they wanted their voice heard. You either show up and say your piece, or zip it and let the chips fall where they may. Credit to you and anyone else who showed up.
Delete3:17, give us a break, please. Many, many of us have packed city hall over the years for this and that...personally, I had another commitment or I would have been there on Wednesday. Don't mistake lack of bodies for folks thinking things are kosher at city hall. I think we can all agree that on one issue or another, they're not.
DeleteEveryone can be there, every time, even for important items. Folks pick their battles. Unfortunately, the city has worn people down over time. Folks think it's pointless to show up and why wouldn't they, given the 4-1 vote to do nothing re: Sabine?
It is nothing short of insanity that residents have to point out error after error, expose scandal after scandal. We many of us have day jobs in addition to feeling so outraged that we find ourselves in the pathetic position of having to oversee the city's poor quality work in our spare time...it's either that or get screwed, you know?
MEANT: Everyone can'T be there, every time, even for important items.
DeleteThe city is paralyzed by ineptitude, self-interest and cronyism. Millions in pension obligations are being accrued and nothing is done to address this looming threat to the solvency of the budget. The operant theory of the civil servants is that the general public is unaware or disinterested and that the activists can be ignored; Sabine is a prime example of the inbred festering of special interests. Stocks had become so arrogant in his reign as tyrant, the activists erroneously thought Shaffer and Kranz were reformists - apparently reform won't be that easy. Kranz is under the sway of Sabine - Kranz was a mistake....
DeleteBang your pots!!
DeleteMake them hurt!!
It was Charlie Marvin who mentioned he was going home to watch the World Series after speaking in Oral Communication. Lots of other people watch it too. The sports bars do a great business. Nothing like a couple of brewskis in a downtown Encinitas bar for a really enjoyable evening.
DeleteGreat, that's one person. Glad we could work in the sports bars as well.
DeleteI think it is unethical for the City Attorney to give advice on whether or not to engage in litigation and then send the litigation to his own firm. Litigation should be assigned to lawfirms that do not benefit the City Attorney financially.
ReplyDeleteHe engages in litigation solely to make money for his firm whenever possible. He will reap what he sows.
DeleteIf the City Attorney is considered an employee and therefore not subject to public vetting in his performance then the City needs to change the employment terms to an independent contractor subject to public review. There is no reason why a vendor, such as a hired attorney, should escape public review. This is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThis is especially true when the person who is presenting the legal advise for the City also uses his own firm to sue citizens. It is in his personal interest to sue anyone he can since his firm will get paid regardless of the merit of the case or if he wins or loses.
DeleteLisa is preaching to the choir, all 25 of you.
ReplyDeleteUsing her own newsletter to admonish and/or explain just underscores her inability to work with others.
Less "work with others" (aka go along to get along) and more following through on campaign promises would be most welcome.
DeleteHmmm, inability to work with others means you are able to coherently convey your thoughts in a written format?
ReplyDeleteHey, that's all 28 of us, if you're using Gus' number.
ReplyDeleteAll of my friends who voted for Lisa are now disappointed and won't vote for her again.
ReplyDeleteThe city workers themselves have done more to bring attention to their own ineptitude than any of us have. If they are so great, why do we have to do our jobs and go down there on our days off and do theirs for free. There must be over 80 employees making six figures now. Besides the firemen, the highest paid are in the Engineering and Planning Departments. Most of us know their level of performance since they invade neighborhood after neighborhood and turn total communitites against the City. Think of Leucadia, Olivenhain or the residents on Crest.
DeleteCan incorporation be reversed? How did it ever come about in the first place? This is like the Middle Ages, where the royalty bleed the people for taxes to lavish it upon themselves.
DeleteI think it can be reversed, but it's not that easy. They're considering it for some of the smaller cities in LA like Bell. I don't think we're that bad off yet. We still have a leg up on Oceanside.
DeleteIs this whole conversation about the same 4 people in our community of 60,000 being pissed at the city attorney, council, staff?
ReplyDeleteMore like 4 in support. If that.
DeleteLet's take a look at the pack that wants the City Attorney's head on a platter.
ReplyDeleteOne was visited by the police for stealing from a nursery. The City holds a huge lien on another's house which she hopes Sabine won't come calling on. One fleeced the City with a frivolous lawsuit that hurt taxpayers but resulted in nothing. And it is common knowledge that Shaffer wanted to replace Sabine with her friend from Bell's law firm who would have been far more expensive because they would have frequently needed to recuse themselves as a result of conflicts of interest with their extensive client list. Too bad Sabine's detractors won't recuse themselves when they have a personal conflict of interest!
Some serious accusations. Care to elaborate on the frivolous lawsuit, the nursery robbery, and Bell's law firm? Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
DeleteBTW, Sabine won't come calling. That's why the lien is there.
Again, name the friend, name where you heard it and name yourself if you're going to make that accusation. Otherwise it's just gossip time, although that's pretty libelous....
DeleteIt is NOT common knowledge that, according to anon 9:25, "Shaffer wanted to replace Sabine with her friend from Bell's law firm . . ." or anything else that rumor-spreader posted. Saying something is "common knowledge," doesn't excuse lies and libelous accusations.
DeleteIf something is common knowledge, then the one making the accusations shouldn't be afraid to post under his own name. There's a difference between common knowledge and gossip, rumors started by, proliferated through, unverified sources.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApril 16, 2003- This is when I went before the City Council to appeal the planning commission's decision to allow a tattoo parlor in Cardiff. It is in the City's archives if anyone is interested. The reason I bring it up is that at Weds. night's City Council meeting (Oct. 23, 2013) Mr. Sabine stated that he asked me to take out some materials as some Boy Scouts were going to be there that night. SO, I went back to take a look, and you can too. There were not Boy Scouts not the agenda that night. No proclamations that the Boy Scouts were getting, in fact nothing indicates that there were Boy Scouts in attendance. That was only one of the lies Mr. Sabine told the public and Council that night. No one on the sitting current Council was on the Council in 2003, so I will make sure they also know this information.
ReplyDeleteShould have typed there were NO Boy Scouts on the agenda that night.
DeleteI was offended that Mr. Sabine used an excuse that Dr. Greene's materials SHOWING what they were voting for were inappropriate for Boy Scouts to see, yet the past council voted to bring tattoos and body piercing to Cardiff. They voted to bring the real thing to our community but were afraid to have pictures of what they were voting on available.
DeleteHow is that supportive of our family-friendly city? I am not aware of many parents who want to treat their kids to a piercing or a tattoo. Was there really such a high demand for this service that people couldn't drive to Oceanside or Pacific Beach instead?
Make sure the Council's aware, Dr. L.
ReplyDeleteI laffed out loud when Glenn mentioned "the genital piercing" photos. I cannot even imagine YOU, Dr. Lorri, presenting a "Prince Albert" or a "Guiche" in your 3 minute presentation!
ReplyDeleteIt's time the city requires the tattoo/body piercing parlors put up a big sign that says "genital piercing here". See how fast the community reacts to that.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lori - one question: did you want to put up a picture of a PENIS on the screen for anyone (maybe one kid could've been in the audience) to see?
ReplyDelete12:16 if it was why is that bad? After all Dr Greene's point was that a tattoo parlor and piercings that desecrated the human body might be bad for our kids. Are you suggesting that having an establishment that mutilated some say the humam body is OK, but showing photos is bad? Sounds how shall we say hypocritical
DeleteThe body piercing/tattoo parlor's attorney was Marco Gonzalez. Exactly what type of changes is Marco fighting for in Encinitas?
ReplyDeleteMarco represents body piercing/tattoo parlors and bars. You decide what changes he wants in Encinitas.
DeleteHey sitting outside the Little Moore Coffee Shop admiring the dead flowers in the center median.
ReplyDeleteWay to go KLCC.
Leucadia ...Keep it Crappy.
Actually it was Charlie Marvin who defended the person who wanted the tattoo parlor. Marco Gonzales is defending the developers who want Desert Rose.
ReplyDelete11:16 AM
ReplyDeleteMarco Gonzales defended the transfer of the body piercing/tattoo parlor business to another owner.
11:29-Can you share more. I was the one who originally appealed the tattoo parlor. I went up against Charlie Marvin. I had no idea that Marco got involved after that. If you would provide a link, I would sure appreciate it.
ReplyDelete12:16-No it wasn't a penis I wanted to show.
Of you don't have the link to Marco's involvement, perhaps you might know the approximate year, and I can do a FOI request.
DeletePlanning Commission agenda
DeleteFeb. 19, 2009 - # 8
Case #08-159
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI just checked out the 2-19-09 Planning Commission report. However, I don't see Marco's name on it. What am I massing, except I do not ever recall getting a notice about this change. I will be inquiring on that. There was a valid reason why the tattoo/body piercing parlor was not supposed to be able to continue on to a new owner. I am not sure why the Planning Commission thought they could override the City Council.
DeleteCheck the video at the time of 2:26:37. Marco introduces himself as the applicant's representative. This applicant (owner) sold the tattoo location to another owner sometime in 2011. Was a hearing required for that change? Were there other owners in between those years?
DeleteSo, if there's an elephant in the room now I guess it's the question what exactly was it Glenn didn't want shown on the monitor at city hall? Or, maybe I shouldn't even ask.
ReplyDeleteIt is not Sabine's job to decide what citizens do or do not show. That is fascism and censorship.
DeleteThere are and should be limits.
DeleteAnd who decides those?
DeleteOh, people who may think there's such a thing as good and evil.
DeleteThe tattoo parlor was sold again in Oct. 2011.
ReplyDeleteThanks 5:00. Fred-What I was going to show were some pictures that came from a magazine that was related to both tattoos and body piercing. I'm pretty sure the Boy Scouts, who by the way, were not on the agenda that night, had already seen something like them. I have no idea why he REALLY wanted me to take them out. Maybe it was Charlie Marvin's idea, I could not begin to answer the question. When Glenn called, I put him on speaker, as he was being so nasty, and my colleague who heard his speech, was absolutely appalled. She could not believe that anyone would talk to me that way, especially our City Attorney. She lives in Del Mar, so perhaps they are more civil there?
ReplyDeleteEIther way, sounds like Sabine's actions weren't inline with how one should act as a city attorney.
ReplyDelete3:28- You are right, but Sabine has been getting away with it for so long he doesn't think there are any consequences, and he is right. There have not been. When a contracted City Attorney, who I, and others pay the bills for, shouts, yells, threatens, etc., a citizen, I would think that would be grounds for removal and dismissal. Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot begin to understand, he is still here. The only reason I can think of is he knows the "dirt" on a lot of people and perhaps they are afraid to let him go. I have my own personal thoughts about that, but they are not fit for any blog.
ReplyDeleteHe must know enough to land some people in jail or he would be long gone.
ReplyDeleteYa think?
ReplyDeleteSmall town politics taken over by self-serving sharks. Apathetic public, inept/corrupt city council, entrenched city administrators that resist change. All a recipe for business as usual. What it takes is stronger and more active citizen participation to make the changes necessary - obviously more on the unlikely side of things to occur. Activists are always the minority, until things are really out of control
ReplyDelete