MORGAN HILL
– The city may spend up to $100,000 to conclude an investigation
involving the city manager, the city attorney, a well-known local
lawyer and a City Councilwoman.
MORGAN HILL – The city may spend up to $100,000 to conclude an investigation involving the city manager, the city attorney, a well-known local lawyer and a City Councilwoman.
The council already has spent $50,000 to investigate the City Hall scandal that came to light when attorney Bruce Tichinin hired a private investigator to follow City Manager Ed Tewes while he was in Long Beach on city business. The council then prepared a report that outlined an alleged affair between Tewes and City Attorney Helene Leichter, both of whom have denied having an affair.
The report that City Councilmen Greg Sellers and Larry Carr prepared and presented to the public on July 2, said that $50,000 had been allocated. But bills for some costs of the investigation have not been received.
“We thought it was vital that we give a number (the $50,000 in the report),” Sellers said. More specific numbers will be made public when they are finalized, he said.
The report said Councilwoman Hedy Chang hired Tichinin to defend her against claims of defamation and harassment made by Leichter, but Tichinin – after six days of avoiding direct questions about his involvement – admitted he hired the investigator at the behest of an anonymous person. Tichinin planned to use the information, if any, to question the independence of Leichter’s decision on a land-use issue Tichinin and client Howard Vierra had before the city, Tichinin said later.
Because the city’s work unraveling the puzzle was conducted entirely in closed sessions, out of public view, several members of the public have claimed the city broke the law.
The Ralph M. Brown Act, approved by voters in 1953, is called the “Sunshine Act” because it was designed to “shine the spotlight” on local government meetings.
The City of Morgan Hill interprets the Brown Act as not allowing more than two of the five council members (three is a quorum and voting majority) to meet anywhere together without public notice – except on purely social occasions.
Jim Ewert, attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association in Sacramento, said he was troubled by several of the council’s actions, though he was OK with the item authorizing the $100,000 on the consent calendar.
“As long as public comment is before the decision, not after, and council doesn’t engage in serial meetings or improper consensus building,” Ewert said council action would be legal. “But the council is going to have to listen to public comment from those willing to speak on the issue.”
Ewert said the fact that council undertook the investigation in private, noticed them as “pending litigation” or “city manager’s performance report” – both legal closed session items – and authorized the $50,000 entirely in private, gives rise to some very interesting political questions, from his legal standpoint.
“The council will ultimately have to answer to the residents of the city,” Ewert said.
However, claims of a Brown Act violation due to a closed-session decision to accept Chang’s apology were dismissed by special counsel Marguerite Leoni on Friday.
“There was no formal settlement made between Councilmember Chang and the city,” Leoni said.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy said Monday the council has decided not to sue Chang to recover costs of the investigation. That decision came after Chang’s public apology on July 14 and Tichinin’s admission that he acted on behalf of another client
Councilman Greg Sellers said he would ask that the item be pulled from the consent calendar – items which council normally approves without much discussion – to give the public a chance to hear details. He also will ask that members of the public be given a chance to speak Wednesday night about the money.
“It’s public information and important that the public know,” Sellers said.
Leoni said Friday that it was totally legal for the council to discuss the matter as pending litigation because Tichinin indicated that taking legal action against the city was not out of the question.
Because authorization of the $100,000 is on the consent calendar, it is likely that the issue will be heard between 7 and 7:30 tonight, at City Hall, 17555 Peak Ave.
