Open government atty wants mayor to swear

The Chula Vista councilman at the center of an open-government controversy said it was a shame the mayor and city clerk are the subjects of a deposition and is “disappointed that a lawsuit had to be filed.”

Steve Miesen said he didn’t see evidence of a Brown Act Violation when he was appointed to the City Council earlier this year.

“It wasn’t like this was any kind of back room deal,” he said.

Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling and the open government advocacy group San Diegans for Open Government filed a lawsuit last February contending that council members and the mayor violated the Ralph M. Brown Act — the state’s opening meeting law — in appointing Miesen to a vacant council seat on Jan. 23.

“It was very out in the open; we followed procedures that we’ve followed previously, and now all of a sudden they’re wrong?” Miesen said.

He added that the public had an opportunity to speak out against the process and that no one did.

Last week attorney Marco Gonzalez summoned Mayor Mary Casillas Salas and City Clerk Donna Norris to be deposed in November.

“The message that we want to send to the city is that we’re not going away,” said Gonzalez of Coast Law Group.

“You’re not going to make this lawsuit go away with legal tricks and procedural challenges. It’s time to face the music.

“And that’s what these depositions are going to do, they’re going to put the officials who violated the law in front of a camera, under oath, to essentially disclose the activities that they took.”

The seat was left vacant after Casillas Salas was elected mayor last November.

Shilling contends that council members allegedly held a serial meeting with the city clerk by emailing their votes for potential City Council candidates to move into the interview round.

Miesen said it doesn’t bother him not knowing who voted for him to move into the interview round.

“I don’t care,” he said. “It didn’t really matter to me who nominated me or didn’t nominate me. All I know is that I had the honor of being in that top eight.”

In a previous interview Norris said she will fully cooperate with the deposition.

“It is what it is and I (have) nothing to hide,” Norris said. “I’m happy to give them whatever they want.”

The city clerk said she stands by the fact that she wasn’t part of a serial meeting with the council.
Norris is scheduled to be deposed Nov. 10.

When contacted, Casillas Salas said she could not comment about the deposition because it was pending litigation.

She is scheduled to be deposed Nov. 3.

Bart Miesfeld, the head litigator for the city of Chula Vista, also said he couldn’t comment because of pending litigation but did say the city “clearly did not violate the Brown Act.”

Criminal defense lawyer Marc Carlos has experience with handling depositions and testimony of South County officials, having represented former Chula Vista Councilman Steve Castaneda and former Sweetwater Union High School District board member Pearl Quiñones.

He said deposing the mayor can be a challenge.

“The thing that you have to realize is that the deposition of the mayor is going to be under oath, (and) is going to be subject to being defended by the lawyers,” he said. “The lawyers are going to be objecting as much as possible to keep her testimony as tight as possible.

“When they’re defending a deposition, you want your client to make as concise an answer as possible, you don’t want them to wander because once they start wandering they make themselves subject to cross examination.”

Carlos said the deposing lawyers want the mayor and city clerk to give up lots of information during their depositions.

“For the person who is cross examining them, you want to kind of back them into places where they need to make an explanation,” he said. “As much as their lawyers are going to want to make yes and no answers or ‘I don’t recall,’ the lawyers who do a deposition, they want to push you to make an explanation.

“As much as they can they want to construct their questioning so that they have to explain something.”

The city has argued in court papers that a judge did not have the legal authority to remove Miesen from office because that is the jurisdiction of the state attorney general.

However, the attorney general disagreed and wrote in an opinion that a local judge could remove Miesen.

Despite the legal opinion, the city is moving forward with a motion to dismiss the case.

Shilling said the city wanting to dismiss the case is meaningless.

“The city’s tactic is meant to stall and delay,” he said. “They don’t really have a good defense for what they’ve done and so they just continue to kick the can down the road at the taxpayer’s expense.”

The thought of resigning and then possibly getting reappointed with a more open process has not crossed Miesen’s mind.

“I’m guided by what (City Attorney) Glen’s saying,” he said. “Certainly I have not had anyone to ask that question of me (resigning).”

“If it makes sense, it’ll be something to think about.”10