Chula Vista Port moves at odds with past process
By Tanya Sierra
SDUT
January 18, 2011
The last time Chula Vista appointed someone to the port commission it accepted applications for a month, narrowed the field to three finalists and conducted public interviews.
Last week it allowed its commissioner to be sworn-in as vice chairman in front of key political players across the county at the annual Port luncheon and then hours later voted him off the commission without so much as a word of warning.
Although no city policy was violated, questions about open government have been raised.
Steve Padilla, who had been filling a vacancy for just over a year on the Port District’s board of directors, was expecting to be reappointed to a four-year term as were his Port colleagues. He said he had no indication from any members on the Chula Vista City Council, that he did not have support to continue representing the South Bay city.
Instead of reappointing Padilla, the City Council appointed Ann Moore without following the same public process they went through the year before when selecting Padilla...
Comparing the Port Commissioners
Steve Padilla
•Mayor of Chula Vista from 2002 to 2006
•Chula Vista City Councilman from 1994 to 2002
•California Coastal Commissioner from from 2005 to 2007
Ann Moore
•Chula Vista City Attorney from 1995 to 2008
•Experience in land-use, redevelopment and environmental law
•Senior partner in the law firm Norton Moore and Adams
Showing posts with label Elected city attorney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elected city attorney. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Googins, Faigin battle for first city attorney in Chula Vista
Googins, Faigin face tough battle for first city attorney
By Khari Johnson, SDNN
June 8, 2010
SDNN
Up to now, the city attorney in Chula Vista was appointed by the city council but Proposition Q — a 2008 ballot measure — changed city charter to make it an elected position and Chula Vistans will go to the polls Tuesday to choose between Glen Googins and Robert Faigin as their first elected city attorney.
With a salary of more than $200,000, the city attorney will be the highest paid position in Chula Vista city government.
Both Googins and Faigin promise to follow the rule of law, claim to be independent and accuse his opponent of being beholden to special interests trying to influence City Hall.
They see the position as an advisor, not policy maker, and share concerns expressed by members of the City Council and Proposition Q opponents that the office has the potential to become politicized and impact legal advice offered to the council and city departments.
But that’s also why both claim he should be elected, not his opponent.
“Obviously, now theoretically they’re more responsible to the people than the city council members,” said current City Attorney Bart Miesfeld, “but day to day responsibilities won’t change,” said
Faigin, a resident of Lakeside, has been the county sheriff’s chief counsel since 2002 and decided to run after members of the South County sheriff’s office told him no qualified candidates sought the position.
Googins opened his private practice handling real estate and development issues in 2004 after 11 years of similar work in the city attorney’s office. Disagreements with then City Attorney Ann Moore led Googins to resign, in the process receiving a $175,000 severance package.
Joseph Casas, the candidate endorsed by the San Diego County Democratic Party, dropped out of the race in March and is currently representing Police Chief David Bejarano against accusations of fraud by a former business partner.
“The downside to turning it into an elected position is that instantly the developers, Corky McMillan, all of those people start pumping money into campaigns because they want to influence city politics,” Faigin said.
By the May 27 financial filing deadline, Googins had raised $33,000 from 100 donors, including teachers, border patrol agents and city residents, but also several lawyers, real estate developers. In addition he raised nearly $1,000 from executives from The Corky McMillin Companies, including company president and CEO Mark McMillin.
Googins endorsers include the Chula Vista Police Officer and Firefighter Associations, former City Attorney John Kaheny, state assemblymember Mary Salas, County Supervisor Greg Cox and The Republican Party of San Diego County, though it is a non-partisan race.
About one-third of donors to Googin’s campaign are Chula Vista residents.
“I’m not promising anyone anything,” Googins said. “Just because I’ve represented developers doesn’t mean I’m going to favor any developers. When I’m with the city, the city’s my client.”...
By Khari Johnson, SDNN
June 8, 2010
SDNN
Up to now, the city attorney in Chula Vista was appointed by the city council but Proposition Q — a 2008 ballot measure — changed city charter to make it an elected position and Chula Vistans will go to the polls Tuesday to choose between Glen Googins and Robert Faigin as their first elected city attorney.
With a salary of more than $200,000, the city attorney will be the highest paid position in Chula Vista city government.
Both Googins and Faigin promise to follow the rule of law, claim to be independent and accuse his opponent of being beholden to special interests trying to influence City Hall.
They see the position as an advisor, not policy maker, and share concerns expressed by members of the City Council and Proposition Q opponents that the office has the potential to become politicized and impact legal advice offered to the council and city departments.
But that’s also why both claim he should be elected, not his opponent.
“Obviously, now theoretically they’re more responsible to the people than the city council members,” said current City Attorney Bart Miesfeld, “but day to day responsibilities won’t change,” said
Faigin, a resident of Lakeside, has been the county sheriff’s chief counsel since 2002 and decided to run after members of the South County sheriff’s office told him no qualified candidates sought the position.
Googins opened his private practice handling real estate and development issues in 2004 after 11 years of similar work in the city attorney’s office. Disagreements with then City Attorney Ann Moore led Googins to resign, in the process receiving a $175,000 severance package.
Joseph Casas, the candidate endorsed by the San Diego County Democratic Party, dropped out of the race in March and is currently representing Police Chief David Bejarano against accusations of fraud by a former business partner.
“The downside to turning it into an elected position is that instantly the developers, Corky McMillan, all of those people start pumping money into campaigns because they want to influence city politics,” Faigin said.
By the May 27 financial filing deadline, Googins had raised $33,000 from 100 donors, including teachers, border patrol agents and city residents, but also several lawyers, real estate developers. In addition he raised nearly $1,000 from executives from The Corky McMillin Companies, including company president and CEO Mark McMillin.
Googins endorsers include the Chula Vista Police Officer and Firefighter Associations, former City Attorney John Kaheny, state assemblymember Mary Salas, County Supervisor Greg Cox and The Republican Party of San Diego County, though it is a non-partisan race.
About one-third of donors to Googin’s campaign are Chula Vista residents.
“I’m not promising anyone anything,” Googins said. “Just because I’ve represented developers doesn’t mean I’m going to favor any developers. When I’m with the city, the city’s my client.”...
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tentative Agreement Could Avert Chula Vista Police Cuts
Obstacles to negotiations over the last four months were reported to include officers’ fears of having cuts forced on them if they agreed to open their contract with the city, and concerns about the attorney negotiating for Chula Vista
Tentative Agreement Could Avert Chula Vista Police Cuts
By Kyla Calvert
KPBS
January 14, 2011
Chula Vista leaders and representatives of the city’s Police Officers’ Association have reached a tentative agreement that could avert pending officer layoffs, according to an officers’ association announcement.
Members of the officers’ association are expected to vote on the agreement Jan. 20. If a majority of the officers support it, the agreement would then need city council approval.
“The Chula Vista Police Officers’ Association and the City of Chula Vista have really found some common ground here,” said Lt. Phil Collum, director of communications for the officers’ association. “This isn’t a win for anybody, except – hopefully – the community of Chula Vista.”
Not all specifics of the agreement have been made public. One term of the agreement, however, is that officers will join the rest of the city's employees in paying their full pension contributions.
"Within six months, all of our employees and (elected officials) are going to pay their pension investments, and not have the taxpayers pay them," said Mayor Cheryl Cox. Chula Vista will be among the first cities in California to adopt this pension policy, she added.
In December a study funded by the officers’ association suggested Chula Vista officials dip into reserves to avoid the cuts, while the city has suggested the police contribute 9 percent toward their pension plans and agree to pay freezes.
About 20 positions are on the line. Those layoffs were originally scheduled to take place Jan. 7. They were first postponed this week and are now on hold until Jan. 24.
Thirty-two officers received layoff notices in October when the city officials first announced plans to plug a $18.5 million hole in the city budget. Since then the police department has made arrangements with the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the Sweetwater Union High School District and grantmakers to preserve about 10 positions on it’s its own, Collum said.
Obstacles to negotiations over the last four months were reported to include officers’ fears of having cuts forced on them if they agreed to open their contract with the city, and concerns about the attorney negotiating for Chula Vista...
Tentative Agreement Could Avert Chula Vista Police Cuts
By Kyla Calvert
KPBS
January 14, 2011
Chula Vista leaders and representatives of the city’s Police Officers’ Association have reached a tentative agreement that could avert pending officer layoffs, according to an officers’ association announcement.
Members of the officers’ association are expected to vote on the agreement Jan. 20. If a majority of the officers support it, the agreement would then need city council approval.
“The Chula Vista Police Officers’ Association and the City of Chula Vista have really found some common ground here,” said Lt. Phil Collum, director of communications for the officers’ association. “This isn’t a win for anybody, except – hopefully – the community of Chula Vista.”
Not all specifics of the agreement have been made public. One term of the agreement, however, is that officers will join the rest of the city's employees in paying their full pension contributions.
"Within six months, all of our employees and (elected officials) are going to pay their pension investments, and not have the taxpayers pay them," said Mayor Cheryl Cox. Chula Vista will be among the first cities in California to adopt this pension policy, she added.
In December a study funded by the officers’ association suggested Chula Vista officials dip into reserves to avoid the cuts, while the city has suggested the police contribute 9 percent toward their pension plans and agree to pay freezes.
About 20 positions are on the line. Those layoffs were originally scheduled to take place Jan. 7. They were first postponed this week and are now on hold until Jan. 24.
Thirty-two officers received layoff notices in October when the city officials first announced plans to plug a $18.5 million hole in the city budget. Since then the police department has made arrangements with the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the Sweetwater Union High School District and grantmakers to preserve about 10 positions on it’s its own, Collum said.
Obstacles to negotiations over the last four months were reported to include officers’ fears of having cuts forced on them if they agreed to open their contract with the city, and concerns about the attorney negotiating for Chula Vista...
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Why Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox doesn't want an elected city attorney
AN ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY IN CHULA VISTA?
San Diego Union Tribune, South edition
By Cheryl Cox, Mayor of Chula Vista
October 25, 2008
Do voters really want one more politician in Chula Vista?
[Blogger's response: The City Attorney already IS political in Chula Vista. The job of the appointed city attorney seems to be to make sure that the voters don't know what's going on behind closed doors, and to insist that conducting business as usual is perfectly legal. The city attorney's current job is to help elected officials do whatever they want to do by coming up with a legal justification and sticking to it, no matter how much it violates the letter or the spirit of the law. We learned how much you like to operate in secrecy, Cheryl, from your shenanigans when you were a board member in Chula Vista Elementary School District. We just don't like it.]
Proposition Q would create more politicians and more politics. Proposition Q is bad for Chula Vista.
Does turning the position of Chula Vista's city attorney into a political one make better government? No.
Does it make what a city attorney does more transparent? No.
Does it make the position more accountable and less corruptible? No.
Chula Vista's city attorney is an appointed professional whose duty is to protect Chula Vista taxpayers by providing legal advice to the mayor, City Council and city staff. While saying that the city attorney should be more responsible to the electorate sounds like a good idea, it unwisely burdens the city attorney with representing a consistently shifting idea of what the “public interest” really is.
[Protect the taxpayers? Is that what you call the Laurie Madigan deal pulled off by the law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, that has represented both you and Ms. Madigan? And how about protecting the people? You weren't doing that when you authorized the expansion of a power plant near Otay Elementary, and a big giveaway to Gaylord.]
The city attorney's primary role is to represent and advise the municipal government. This initiative would create a city attorney whose primary role is to get re-elected, regardless of the impact of campaign politics on the best interests of the city and the increased possibility that officials and departments might consider hiring, at taxpayer expense, their own legal counsel to represent them.
[Come on, Cheryl. The appointed city attorney knows very well that his/her job is to get the people in power reelected.]
The City Council, city departments and agencies rely on fair, objective and nonpolitical advice from the city attorney. Proposition Q isn't about good governance. It puts in place a politician with a built-in incentive to grandstand, litigate and use the office for political purposes.
We should not replace a competent professional with a politician. For one thing, politicians have to solicit campaign contributions. Contributions from those with an ax to grind?
[Your appointed city attorney has to grind your axes, Cheryl, and those of the entire city council.]
An elected city attorney has nothing to do with the size of a city's population. It sacrifices competent, professional legal opinion for being good at politics.This would not be an independent voice! It would be linked inextricably to the political influences of special interests and electioneering.
[Heavens! Do you mean that someone might point out to you the negatives of something you want to do? Horrors! Keep your hands tightly clamped to your ears, Cheryl.]
If Chula Vista elects a politician as its city attorney, the city is in trouble.
Has an elected city attorney worked well for San Diego? Ticket guarantees, pension underfunding...
[Pension underfunding??!! Okay. Stop right there, Cheryl. Casey Gwinn, the city attorney who was involved in the pension underfunding scam was sitting solidly in the lap of Mayor Dick Murphy. He was exactly the person that city officials wanted; he sat silent when he should have given negative feedback. He was just your cup of tea. It's city attorneys like Mike Aguirre that give you the shakes, because they really do represent the people.]
...and millions wasted on politically motivated lawsuits? Proposition Q doesn't restrict this type of behavior. It allows an elected city attorney to file lawsuits without prior council approval.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders said that he has “never asked Mr. [City Attorney Mike] Aguirre for anything other than good, timely, well-researched legal advice. To this date, I have not been able to get it. Mr. Aguirre continues to wait until the last minute to put out legal advice, and it's frequently in conflict with what he's told us before. . . . I can't get legal advice that is really necessary when you run a $3 billion corporation.”
[Jerry Sanders was playing politics when he said this. But I think that we should give him his own appointed attorney. I think cities should have two city attorneys, one for the public and one for the officials. And I think the public should hear what BOTH the elected and the appointed attorneys have to say about each issue. This would put pressure on officials to make good choices. An appointed attorney thinks his job is to protect officials from accountability.]
Today, Chula Vista's appointed city attorney doesn't have a vote. He's not the sixth member of the council. And he (or she) shouldn't be.
[An elected city attorney wouldn't get a vote either, Cheryl. Why do you misrepresent the facts?]
--------------------
The piece above was written by Cheryl Cox, mayor of Chula Vista. Maura Larkins wrote the responses.]
San Diego Union Tribune, South edition
By Cheryl Cox, Mayor of Chula Vista
October 25, 2008
Do voters really want one more politician in Chula Vista?
[Blogger's response: The City Attorney already IS political in Chula Vista. The job of the appointed city attorney seems to be to make sure that the voters don't know what's going on behind closed doors, and to insist that conducting business as usual is perfectly legal. The city attorney's current job is to help elected officials do whatever they want to do by coming up with a legal justification and sticking to it, no matter how much it violates the letter or the spirit of the law. We learned how much you like to operate in secrecy, Cheryl, from your shenanigans when you were a board member in Chula Vista Elementary School District. We just don't like it.]
Proposition Q would create more politicians and more politics. Proposition Q is bad for Chula Vista.
Does turning the position of Chula Vista's city attorney into a political one make better government? No.
Does it make what a city attorney does more transparent? No.
Does it make the position more accountable and less corruptible? No.
Chula Vista's city attorney is an appointed professional whose duty is to protect Chula Vista taxpayers by providing legal advice to the mayor, City Council and city staff. While saying that the city attorney should be more responsible to the electorate sounds like a good idea, it unwisely burdens the city attorney with representing a consistently shifting idea of what the “public interest” really is.
[Protect the taxpayers? Is that what you call the Laurie Madigan deal pulled off by the law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, that has represented both you and Ms. Madigan? And how about protecting the people? You weren't doing that when you authorized the expansion of a power plant near Otay Elementary, and a big giveaway to Gaylord.]
The city attorney's primary role is to represent and advise the municipal government. This initiative would create a city attorney whose primary role is to get re-elected, regardless of the impact of campaign politics on the best interests of the city and the increased possibility that officials and departments might consider hiring, at taxpayer expense, their own legal counsel to represent them.
[Come on, Cheryl. The appointed city attorney knows very well that his/her job is to get the people in power reelected.]
The City Council, city departments and agencies rely on fair, objective and nonpolitical advice from the city attorney. Proposition Q isn't about good governance. It puts in place a politician with a built-in incentive to grandstand, litigate and use the office for political purposes.
We should not replace a competent professional with a politician. For one thing, politicians have to solicit campaign contributions. Contributions from those with an ax to grind?
[Your appointed city attorney has to grind your axes, Cheryl, and those of the entire city council.]
An elected city attorney has nothing to do with the size of a city's population. It sacrifices competent, professional legal opinion for being good at politics.This would not be an independent voice! It would be linked inextricably to the political influences of special interests and electioneering.
[Heavens! Do you mean that someone might point out to you the negatives of something you want to do? Horrors! Keep your hands tightly clamped to your ears, Cheryl.]
If Chula Vista elects a politician as its city attorney, the city is in trouble.
Has an elected city attorney worked well for San Diego? Ticket guarantees, pension underfunding...
[Pension underfunding??!! Okay. Stop right there, Cheryl. Casey Gwinn, the city attorney who was involved in the pension underfunding scam was sitting solidly in the lap of Mayor Dick Murphy. He was exactly the person that city officials wanted; he sat silent when he should have given negative feedback. He was just your cup of tea. It's city attorneys like Mike Aguirre that give you the shakes, because they really do represent the people.]
...and millions wasted on politically motivated lawsuits? Proposition Q doesn't restrict this type of behavior. It allows an elected city attorney to file lawsuits without prior council approval.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders said that he has “never asked Mr. [City Attorney Mike] Aguirre for anything other than good, timely, well-researched legal advice. To this date, I have not been able to get it. Mr. Aguirre continues to wait until the last minute to put out legal advice, and it's frequently in conflict with what he's told us before. . . . I can't get legal advice that is really necessary when you run a $3 billion corporation.”
[Jerry Sanders was playing politics when he said this. But I think that we should give him his own appointed attorney. I think cities should have two city attorneys, one for the public and one for the officials. And I think the public should hear what BOTH the elected and the appointed attorneys have to say about each issue. This would put pressure on officials to make good choices. An appointed attorney thinks his job is to protect officials from accountability.]
Today, Chula Vista's appointed city attorney doesn't have a vote. He's not the sixth member of the council. And he (or she) shouldn't be.
[An elected city attorney wouldn't get a vote either, Cheryl. Why do you misrepresent the facts?]
--------------------
The piece above was written by Cheryl Cox, mayor of Chula Vista. Maura Larkins wrote the responses.]
Does Chula Vista need TWO city attorneys?
I suggest that cities need two city attorneys--one to give honest, accurate legal advice, and the other to defend officials.
The voters of Chula Vista want the city attorney to look out for them, and not just for elected officials. Shamefully, Cheryl Cox and other officials want to keep the status quo, in which the city attorney's job has been to help officials do whatever they want, and get away with it. Alternatively, the attorney tells the council what to do, and acts as a de facto city council without being elected.
Election of city attorney to add to political storm
By Tanya Sierra
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
November 8, 2008
CHULA VISTA – In June 2010, the political landscape in Chula Vista will change again, this time in the office of the city attorney – which some say will be a powerful position at City Hall.
Voters said clearly on Tuesday that they want to elect their city attorney, the way it is done in San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach and other cities.
The elected city attorney, though, will be stepping into a political tempest.
Chula Vista's four council members and the mayor have said they do not believe that politicizing the City Attorney's Office is in the best interest of the city.
Councilman Rudy Ramirez, who debated the issue in community forums several times, said it will be difficult to hold the elected city attorney accountable.
“We are so dependent – as nonattorneys – on that advice for a lot of the decisions we make and the direction that our city goes in,” Ramirez said. “We're at the mercy of that person and that person's advice.”
Community members who lobbied for an elected city attorney say City Hall needs accountability, and that will come with an attorney elected by the people.
No residency requirements will be placed on the position, so an attorney who lives in North County could run for the office.
“Hopefully the person that runs does so because they respect and honor the law and truly represent the people and city of Chula Vista,” Councilman Steve Castaneda said.
As with City Council candidates, those interested in the city attorney position can take out nomination papers with the City Clerk's Office 113 days before the election.
Last month, Chula Vista resident John Moot, an outspoken attorney who is a partner in a San Diego law firm, said he would run for the office. This week, after the proposition passed, he said he would have to wait and see.
“A lot depends on how this economy plays out,” Moot said in an e-mail. “Fortunately, the election is not for two years and there is time to see where both the economy and the City Council is in a year or so.”
Having Moot, a former Chula Vista councilman, in office could further divide the council.
Moot has been an vocal critic of Castaneda and is closely aligned with Mayor Cheryl Cox, even though he is a Democrat and she is a Republican.
In the meantime, officials must decide whether to make interim City Attorney Bart Miesfeld permanent until the election. Miesfeld has been filling in since Ann Moore retired this summer, saying she wanted to be an attorney, not a politician.
The voters of Chula Vista want the city attorney to look out for them, and not just for elected officials. Shamefully, Cheryl Cox and other officials want to keep the status quo, in which the city attorney's job has been to help officials do whatever they want, and get away with it. Alternatively, the attorney tells the council what to do, and acts as a de facto city council without being elected.
Election of city attorney to add to political storm
By Tanya Sierra
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
November 8, 2008
CHULA VISTA – In June 2010, the political landscape in Chula Vista will change again, this time in the office of the city attorney – which some say will be a powerful position at City Hall.
Voters said clearly on Tuesday that they want to elect their city attorney, the way it is done in San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach and other cities.
The elected city attorney, though, will be stepping into a political tempest.
Chula Vista's four council members and the mayor have said they do not believe that politicizing the City Attorney's Office is in the best interest of the city.
Councilman Rudy Ramirez, who debated the issue in community forums several times, said it will be difficult to hold the elected city attorney accountable.
“We are so dependent – as nonattorneys – on that advice for a lot of the decisions we make and the direction that our city goes in,” Ramirez said. “We're at the mercy of that person and that person's advice.”
Community members who lobbied for an elected city attorney say City Hall needs accountability, and that will come with an attorney elected by the people.
No residency requirements will be placed on the position, so an attorney who lives in North County could run for the office.
“Hopefully the person that runs does so because they respect and honor the law and truly represent the people and city of Chula Vista,” Councilman Steve Castaneda said.
As with City Council candidates, those interested in the city attorney position can take out nomination papers with the City Clerk's Office 113 days before the election.
Last month, Chula Vista resident John Moot, an outspoken attorney who is a partner in a San Diego law firm, said he would run for the office. This week, after the proposition passed, he said he would have to wait and see.
“A lot depends on how this economy plays out,” Moot said in an e-mail. “Fortunately, the election is not for two years and there is time to see where both the economy and the City Council is in a year or so.”
Having Moot, a former Chula Vista councilman, in office could further divide the council.
Moot has been an vocal critic of Castaneda and is closely aligned with Mayor Cheryl Cox, even though he is a Democrat and she is a Republican.
In the meantime, officials must decide whether to make interim City Attorney Bart Miesfeld permanent until the election. Miesfeld has been filling in since Ann Moore retired this summer, saying she wanted to be an attorney, not a politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)