The cost of defending decisions

Whether or not you follow local politics, or get involved in local government, the way our city leaders spend taxpayer money affects everyone. It is no secret that the City of Chula Vista has a large infrastructure deficit. The odds are that you have something in your neighborhood, or along your commute, that needs to be built, repaired, or removed; things like potholes, sidewalks, and overhead power lines. When it comes to improving our neighborhoods, every penny counts.

With this in mind, we must ask our City leaders how they decide to spend our money? For instance, tens of thousands of dollars have been allocated to defend the illegal appointment process and keep Steve Miesen on the City Council. Open government laws require the Council to be transparent when conducting the public’s business, yet the City believes it is allowed to make appointments via secret votes and illegal intermediaries. Citizens have criticized this manner of secretive and illegal vote for over a decade. And when Mayor Salas and the City Council had the opportunity to finally step up and do the right thing to fix this process, they instead dug in their heels and committed to spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to fight to keep the public out.

And apparently City leaders will spare no expense to protect their right to illegally conduct business behind closed doors. They have obtained the services of the high-profile law firm McKenna Long and Aldridge. The contract with this firm agrees to pay two lawyers, Charles Bird and Stephanie Warren, the “discounted” rates of $521 and $448 per hour respectively. At this point the clock has been running on their billable hours forweeks. If the city loses the lawsuit and its illegal secret process is overturned, it will also be forced to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. And that will be on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a special election!

Taking a broader view of the situation, we find the City paying outside attorneys to advise the Board of Ethics concerning complaints related to Mr. Miesen’s appointment, diverting resources from the City Attorney’s Office to monitor Mr. Miesen’s conflicts and ability to participatein votes (he has been advised not to vote on matters that would increase housing levels in the City), and soliciting the California Fair Political Practices Commission for guidance. Of course, Mr. Miesen continues to draw a regular salary notwithstanding his inability to vote on critical City matters.
And let’s not pretend that Mr. Miesen was appointed after a perfectly legal process because he was determined to be the best candidate in a moment of clarity or through some grand compromise. He was appointed through an illegal process in a fit of anger, frustration, and desperation. No matter who was appointed, the lawsuit would have been filed simply because the process is illegal and City leaders refuse to correct it. That it was Mr. Miesen who was appointed has only compounded the issues, and the cost to taxpayers.

So who does the Mayor and City Council represent? Why are they willing to spend so much money to fight for their right to secretive governmental practices that provide no benefit to the public? While these are questions only they can answer, it is a shame that despite a decade of complaints, a regular citizen has to sue the City in order to get them to follow the law and vote in public.

Think of that the next time you see a pothole that needs filling.

Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government filed a lawsuit against the city of Chula Vista for the process they used to appoint Councilman Steve Miesen. He is also the chairman of the city’s Board of Ethics.