The Chula Vista Board of Ethics hired outside counsel to review two separate complaints alleging that Steve Miesen presents a conflict of interest in his capacity as a councilman and a division manager with Republic Services, the city’s largest contractor.
Miesen was apponted by his fellow council members in January to replace the seat vacated by Mayor Mary Casillas Salas.
Deputy City Manager Simon Silva said at Wednesday’s meeting that since the City Attorney’s Office was one of the parties named in both complaints, it will recuse itself from the meetings.
“My extent is very limited, only to assisting you to get counsel to take our place,” he told the ethics members as to why he was present at the meeting.
The seven-member Board of Ethics selected Jim Lough from a list of attorneys that had previously been interviewed and vetted.
Chula Vista resident Russ Hall filed an ethics complaint last month requesting that the state Attorney General’s Office or an outside counsel review the Miesen appointment.
Hall said in a telephone interview that he is hopeful the attorney reviewing the complaint remains objective.
“I would hope that the outside counsel provide a complete and (totally) unbiased analysis of the entire process and conduct by which Mr. Miesen was eventually chosen,” he said.
Hall said he is concerned that the selected attorney’s review would favor the city, since the city is the one paying outside counsel.
Jill Galvez told the ethics board that Miesen violates the city’s code of ethics because he presents a conflict or interest.
“Steve Miesen right now is sitting on both sides of the table,” she said. “He’s both the head of a company that’s performing a public service and he’s managing or overseeing that on behalf of the citizens of Chula Vista, and that’s a major conflict of interest.”
Chris Shilling, chairman of the Board of Ethics, is in litigation with the city of Chula Vista over alleged Brown Act violations during Miesen’s appointment process. He said he will ask Lough to determine his level of involvement in the proceedings.
“I’m also going to ask them to prepare a report on whether or not I should recuse myself from both of these items,” he said.
“In my personal opinion and the opinions that I’ve gotten from my counsel, I don’t believe that it represents a conflict specific to what our code says because I don’t have any benefit from it and I haven’t taken any public position on anything that’s related to these complaints, but I also want our attorneys to weigh in on that.”
A prima facia hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 19, where it will be determined whether enough evidence has been presented in the two ethics complaints to merit a full investigation.
