1989-05-30 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY MAY 30, 1989
The meeting
presiding.
ROLL CALL:
convened at 4:00 p.m. with President Corica
Present - Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas,
Withrow, and President Corica - 5.
Absent - None.
President Corica announced the Assignment of Cases would be
discussed first.
CONSIDERATION OF ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
89 -369 Guyton v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney noted the matter is on agenda for
Council's determination of whether or not Council wishes the law
firm of McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown and Enerson to continue to
handle the case; if so, to direct Interim City Attorney to
execute the waiver, and if not, to direct other outside Council
be assigned; and noted Maria Rivera of the McCutcheon firm is
present to answer questions.
Council discussed the possibility of conflict of interest, with
respect to the McCutcheon firm, with Ms. Rivera and the Interim
City Attorney.
Councilmember Thomas stated her concerns regarding possible
conflict, and consent in writing; and noted she has filed a
complaint with the State Bar requesting investigation.
Ms. Rivera explained why she believes there is no violation of
ethics.
Councilmember Withrow expressed concerns to Ms. Rivera regarding
the McCutcheon letter for representation, to which Ms. Rivera
responded the letter could be redrafted to address the concerns
expressed.
President Corica stated he does not doubt the firm's good
reputation but does have concerns.
Councilmember Camicia stated if McCutcheon is the best firm, he
would not want to gamble on a lesser firm.
The Interim City Attorney reviewed Dan Curtin's background and
qualifications as an attorney and as a former City Attorney of
Walnut Creek, and stated other city attorneys recommended Mr.
Curtin for this case.
Council further discussed the firm's qualifications.
May 30, 1989
175
President Corica stated there is no doubt the firm is prestigious
but there must be other firms of the same caliber.
Councilmember Thomas commented on the cost involved, stated there
should be consideration of local lawyers, and reviewed Council's
hiring of the firm.
The Interim City Attorney stated he would hire an ethics expert
at his own cost to evaluate the situation and bring the report to
Council.
Councilmember Camicia suggested if the Interim City Attorney
brings the report back and it is against McCutcheon, the Interim
City Attorney should provide a recommendation of another firm for
consideration.
Councilman Arnerich stated perhaps it would be best to obtain an
ethics expert's opinion.
Councilmember Withrow requested the report be in layman's
language and in detail.
89 -370 Cepparo v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney reported that the law firm which had
been handling the case has returned the file and requested the
City no longer consider them.
Council discussed attorney of record.
The Interim City Attorney stated Ms. Moore consented to
substitution to Meyers and that Mr. Stroud is agreeable to the
firm of Witmore, Kay and Stevens handling the case.
President Corica inquired if this case might be settled, to which
the Interim City Attorney replied settlement has not been
explored with opposing attorney.
Councilmember Thomas stated this matter should wait for the new
City Attorney to which the Interim City Attorney responded he
believes it is on fast track, as cases filed after October, 1988,
in Alameda County are automatically fast tracked; and if is not
fast tracked, he will inform Council.
Councilmember Withrow suggested approaching the Court, explaining
the City is in process of obtaining a City Attorney and
requesting an exception to automatic fast track.
Council discussed the fast -track system, representation for the
City, Moore, and Stroud, settlement possibility and feasibility.
The Interim City Attorney stated he would go to Court, ask if the
City can be taken off fast track because of its unique problem;
if the City cannot be taken off fast track, he will then schedule
the case for Closed Session for June 6, and inquired if Council
would like a litigation attorney to review file and prepare a
May 30, 1989
status report.
Council was in agreement that there was sufficient information.
The Clerk was requested to place the Cepparo case on the June 6th
agenda.
89 -371 Sebago v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney reported Mr. Stein, former Stockton
City Attorney, has been recommended, and there is an oral
argument scheduled for June 7th.
President Corica suggested Mr. Mitchell.
Councilmember Thomas stated the question should be how much would
it cost for Mr. Stein to argue the case and is it worth the
amount.
Council discussed the worth of winning the case and consequence
of losing it.
Councilmember Thomas suggested giving Mr. Stein one day to
determine whether the law and the case file warrants proceeding
further.
The Interim City Attorney stated he would request the answer be
faxed back by tomorrow.
89 -372 Smith v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney reported that the day after receiving
direction, he called Mr. Morton [Morton, Luflofs, and Allen] and
told him to return the case.
Councilmember Withrow suggested the case number be included when
referring to cases with the same names, and the Interim City
responded that he would tab them in the future.
Councilman Arnerich commended the Interim City Attorney on his
work.
89 -373 Bautista v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney commented the City is at arbitration
and that case had been sent to Charles Triebel; there was no
case file in the City Attorney office and he will request a copy
of the file.
89 -374 Williams v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney stated this is a code violation; Felix
Seidler and Bruce Reeves were asked to step in because the judge
was inquiring why the City should not be sanctioned for failure
to respond to fast -track rules; suggested Council determine
whether or not to assign the case to Messrs. Seidler and Reeves.
May 30, 1989
Mr. Seidler noted a filing was due the next day.
Councilmember Thomas moved Council hire Mr. Seidler and Mr.
Reeves.
Councilmember Camicia inquired if there is a problem with Mr.
Reeves being on the Housing Commission, and representing the
City.
Mr. Reeves stated stated he had once been advised there was no
conflict.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89-375 Ullner v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney stated he had no recommendation on whom
to hire in this matter and it will require filing a respondent's
brief.
Council briefly discussed the matter.
The Interim City Attorney inquired if he should have a
recommendation of attorney for assignment of the case by the June
6th Council Meeting, to which Council agreed.
89-376 Perata v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney requested assignment to Felix Seidler.
Mr. Seidler stated he would like advice from Council at Closed
Session.
Council agreed the matter would be discusssed in Closed Session.
89-377 Contaxis v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney noted this is a police case; the
matter was assigned to Mr. Treibel by former the City Attorney;
and he will redirect the case to Mr. Mitchell if Council wishes.
Councilmember Thomas moved the matter be redirected to Mr.
Mitchell. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
89-378 The Interim City Attorney noted that there had been no
motion for the attorney assignment in the Perata case.
Councilmember Thomas moved Bruce Reeves and Felix Seidler be
hired to handle the Perata case. Councilmember Withrow seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
May 30, 1989
DISMISSALS OF CASES
89 -379 Wagner v. Delucchi, City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney reported that no money was paid in the
Wagner case, except cost of defense.
89 -380 Bradley v. City of Alameda
The Interim City Attorney stated that codefendant has agreed to
assume all responsibility and pay all costs.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if there was any possibility of
getting back some of attorney fees expended, to which the Interim
City Attorney replied he would make that request to outside
counsel.
RESOLUTIONS
89 -381 Resolution No. "Authorizing contract with Interim
City Attorney.
President Corica suggested holding contract until it could be
determined when a new City Attorney might be hired, as it might
be very soon.
The Interim City Attorney replied that he would like a contract
as his malpractice carrier has requested there be one.
Discussion followed regarding Interim City Attorney compensation,
procedures involved, prioritization of Interim City Attorney
work; participation of City Manager in the process; and the
draft contract, including notice requirements for termination,
and that the Interim City Attorney shall be paid in the same
manner as any other independent contractor.
Councilmember Withrow moved that Council accept the contract with
the changes as noted: in Paragraph 1., that there be "ten"
working days rather than fifteen; and, on Page 3, paragraph 6,
the next to the last sentence, beginning with the words "Payment
of compensation" and ending with the words "employees of the City
of Alameda," be deleted. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion
which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow, and President Corica -
4. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None.
The Interim City Attorney requested moving the Lucas v. Heffron
case to Closed Session on June 6, 1989. Council, by consensus,
agreed.
President Corica stated he would like a copy of everything the
Interim City Attorney gives to Council, be sent also to the City
Manager.
Council discussed prioritization of cases.
May 30, 1989
179
The Interim City Attorney stated, regarding status reports
received in his office, which he forwards to Council, that if
Council has any questions about any of the cases, he needs to
know in advance, so that he can list those for Closed Sessions,
so that Council may discuss those cases with whomever is handling
those cases.
Council discussed demands of staff upon the Interim City
Attorney's time.
It was noted that Williams v. City and Perata v. City would be
discussed during Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
89-382 Council adjourned to Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
President Corica adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Res e tfully submitted,
Patricia a brea
Deputy City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance
with the Brown Act.
May 30, 1989