HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2000, COMM 1-1 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE (2) communication
April 21, 2000
TO: City Council and Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
FROM: Allen K. Settle 051c
fli .
SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest/and Independent Legal Advice
Because the City Council and an individual Council Member has been sued (Friends of Prefumo
Creek v. the City of San Luis Obispo), and because the Environmental Defense Center(EDC)
has filed a complaint against two council members, myself and Ken Schwartz, over participation
on setting public policy, it is appropriate for us to consider the following actions:
As you know the Council has already directed staff to provide each council member with the GIS
maps showing the 300—2,500 foot boundary from any property acted upon in the City. I am
proposing the City Council budget funds for the purpose of allowing individual council members
to retain legal advice from attorneys for opinion letters for past and future votes subject to FPPC
actions. This action is necessary because the City Attorney cannot represent individual council
members and because any group such as the EDC can file a complaint or litigate against
individual council members, and these complaints filed to agencies such as the Fair Political
Practice Commission (FPPC) can terminate any decision-making for up to five years (statute of
limitation by the FPPC). This will allow council members to continue to participate on matters
that may still be under review by state agencies such as the FPPC. Otherwise, itis possible for
any interest group to affectively preclude the Council, especially on a 2-2 vote, from taking any
future action on matters of land use or other public policy decisions that may be beneficial to the
community. No future decisions can be made by Council Members if there is an FPPC challenge
under these circumstances. Even the outcome of a court decision, in my judgment, does not
answer the FPPC complaint filed against Council Member Schwartz.
AKS:ss
c: City Council
/Independent counsel
v
COMM. 1-1