HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Council Office
'cn · OF SAN BERNARDI~.O - REQUF~T FOR COUNCIL AC....'ON
"
From:
Councilman Jack Reilly
Subject: Legislative Review Committee Report
Dept:
Council Office
f'""~
Date:
November 25, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
o
c:;
I
:">'
CJ
Recommen<:led motion:
.,
That minutes of Legislative Review Committee meeting held
November 19, 1987 be received and filed.
\
t__",_.
-"I-. ." . ~~
'~ ,~nature
Contact person:
Phil l'.rvizo
Phone:
384-5208
N/A
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Nil'.
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item N~
~I
,
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 19, 1987
ATTENDEES: Councilman Jack Reilly - Chairman; Councilman
Michael Maudsley; Councilman Torn Minor; City Attorney - Jim
Penman; City Clerk - Shauna Clark; City Administrator - Ray
Schweitzer; Police Chief - Donald Burnett; Planning Director
- Ann Siracusa; Deputy City Administrator/Development - Jim
Richardson; Public Services Director - Manuel Moreno; Police
Captain Mike Lewis; Senior Planner - Ed Gundy; Council Execu-
tive Assistant - Phil Arvizo, Council Administrative Assis-
tant - John Cole; Mayor's Administrative Assistant - Patti
Gonzales; ABC - Torn Keasling and Vicky Welch.
\} 1. LARGE CITIES' INSURANCE POOL PRESENTATION - BICEP
Referred to noon luncheon on December 2l.
\
~ 2.
LEWIS -
policy.
POLICY ON ISSUANCE OF ABC LICENSES - CAPTAIN MIKE
The Committee recommended approval of the suggested
A legal opinion is to be ready for the next meeting.
3. VENDING ORDINANCE - The Committee referred this to
the City Attorney for a full review. The discussion centered
around Title 5, the type of limitations that could be placed
on this type of operation so that it would remain an upgraded
service rather than becoming an unenforceable array of hot
dog vendors.
4. GREENBELT STUDY - Item referred to the Fire Commis-
sion for their review and recommendation within sixty days.
,
5. RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION FUNCTIONS/ALTERNATIVES-
The Committee reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding and
recommended several changes. The City Attorney and City
Administrator concurred with the changes and will present the
MOU to the full Council.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CERTAIN PORTIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRON-
MENTAL HEALTH CODE - The Committee referred this item to Mr.
Jim Richardson for a full review. He will coordinate with
the Water Department and Public Services and provide all
necessary information to the Committee.
7. DISCUSSION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS REQUESTED AT
COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1987 - The City Attorney
presented a memo to the Committee and enough copies for the
remaining Council members pertaining to Nature of City
Council/City Attorney relationship; Hire of Outside Counsel
(attached) .
8. SURVEY OF NO SMOKING ORDINANCE The Committee
received a survey from Mr. Fred Wilson (survey attached).
Meeting adjourned.
~e tfully s itted,
,~/e~~
/' ouncilman Jac illy
" Cha i rman
Legislative Re iew Committee
JR:ej
I
CITY OF SAN BE~NARDINO - MEMORANDIJ'M ,~r
"
To
Legislation Review Committee
Mayor and Common Council
NATURE OF CITY COUNCIL/CITY ATTORNEY
RELATIONSHIP; HIRE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL
From
JAMES F. PENMAN"
City Attorney' -
November 17, 1987-
Su bject
Date
Approved
Date
" ... the attorney does not represent you, he represents the
City of San Bernardino, therefore the information you gave him
was not confidential. It is for this reason that'your complaint
file is being closed." May 18, 1987 letter from The State Bar of
California to then - Councilman Jack Strickler, (copy attached
marked Exhibit A) .
In early 1987, Councilman Jack Strickler filed a complaint with
the State Bar against Senior Assistant City Attorney Alan Briggs.
Attorney Briggs had prepared a legal opinion citing a conflict of
interest on the part of Strickler. Brigg's opinion was released
to the press.
The reply from the State Bar to Strickler's complaint correctly
states the role of the City Attorney and the unique situation
with respect to the relationship between City Council members and
the City Attorney and his deputies.
In addition, the California State Govern~e~t Code provides that:
"In any case in which a district attorney could act
as the civil or criminal prosecutor under the pro-
visions of this title, the ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY OF
ANY CHARTER CITY may act as the civil or criminal pro-
secutor with respect to any violations of this title
occurring within the city" (emphasis added). Government
Code Section 91001.5.
This section makes it obvious that the traditional attorney-
client relationship is not present between individual Council
members and the City Attorney's office on conflict of interest
matters. Nor is there any authority for the City to provide
attorneys for Council members or the Council in such matters.
As stated in the attached opinions, however, there is ample
authority to the contrary.
The law on the matter of the Council's ability to retain outside
counsel was determined in the 1890's and has continued without
change to the present day. HOUSE vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1894)
104 C 73, 78; MERRIA!oI vs. BARNUM (1897) 116 C 6l9;
~.. .,
..........
-,
LEGISLATION REVIEW CO~~ITTEE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
Page 2
November 17, 1987
MERCED COUNTY vs. COOK, (1898) 120 C 275; DENMAN vs. WEBSTER
(1903) 139 C 452; DADMORE vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; (1908)
9 Cal. Rptr. 549; RAFAEL vs. BOYLE (1916), 31C.A. 623;
JOYNER vs. STOCKTON (1961) 14 Cal. Rptr. 49, 54; MONTGOMERY vs.
SUPERIOR COURT (1975) 46 C.A. 3d 657.
In the case of RAFAEL vs. BOYLE (1916) 31 C.A. 623, the
City Attorney of the City of San Francisco gave certain legal
advice to the City's Civil Service Commission. The Commission
ignored the advice. The Commission was then sued because of
their actions. The Commission refused to accept representation
in the case from the City Attorney and HIRED OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
THE COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DOING SO.
The basis for the long standing rule is found in HOUSE vs.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1894) 104 C 73, 78:
"whatever duties are imposed on officers by law must be
personally discharged by them and the City cannot relieve
its officers from discharging their regular duties by con-
tracting with other persons to perform them",
and in JOYNER vs. STOCKTON (1961) 14 Cal. Rptr. 49, 54:
"The law will not indulge an implication that a public
agency has authority to spend public funds which it does
not need to spend; that it has authority to pay for services
which it may obtain without payment; OR THAT IT MAY DUPLICATE
AN EXPENDITURE FOR SERVICES WHICH THE TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY
PROVIDED" (emphasis added).
The taxpayers have provided two sources of legal advice to Council
members for conflict of interest opinions, the City Attorney's
Office (San Bernardino City Charter Section 55(d)), and the Fair
Political Practices Commission (California Government Code
Section 84ll4(a) and (b)).
The fact that these opinions may be made public and the desire of a fe'
Council members to receive secret advice is irrelevant.
An exhaustive search of statutes and cases fails to reveal a s~ngle
statute or case that entitles elected officials to obtain at publ~c
expense, secret or confidential advice on conflict of interest
issues in a charter city with an elected city attorney.
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 2.20.070 while prohibiting
the tire of outside counsel without the City Attorney first making
"'. "'-
,.J
--
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAYOR AND CO~~ON COUNCIL
Page 3
,-,,'
Nove~ber 17, 1987
a determination that it is necessary, recognizes that city officers
may encounter situations wherein thpj need legal advice that the
taxpayers are not required to provide. To allow for this contin-
gency the code states:
" ... nothing herein shall preclude any city officer
from obtaining outside legal services AT HIS OR HER OWN
EXPENSE concerning the personal or public rights, duties,
privileges or benefits of such officer as an individual or
as an office holder or from obtaining AT HIS OR HER OWN
EXPENSE legal services of a private nature" (emphasis added).
Section 2.20.070
San Bernardino Municipal Code
Attached are legal opinions 87-59 and 87-36, marked Exhibit B
and Exhibit C, respectively, on this subject. These opinions pro-
vide greater detail on the cases cited herein as well as additional
authority.
City officers, including elected officials, are advised that it is
unlawful to hire outside attorneys unless the City Attorney is
unable or unwilling to perform a duty or cuties required of him
by the Charter. Individual city officers are subject to court
orders to personally reimburse the City fer public funds paid to
attorneys unlaWfully hired by, or whose hl=ing is unlawfully
approved by, said officers.
Respectfully submitted,
...-.
, ~. ;.#, .., ... -,....~-,.:.................
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
JFP:dd
:~~ .,. -~~~
.,! ,,~
, ~
.
, '
....~
I
THE STATE BAR
OF CALIFO&.HA
OFFICE OF I:-iVESTIG))J~S
'.>' ,'>~"7" ~!-,IR~:lTREf.T ;.J5 ,,'CELF:, ('4.LlFUR'I'~lt' _i!
~ay 18. 1987
Jack Strickler
City Hall
300 ~. "D" Street
Sa~ E~rnardino. CA 92418
Re: SR 86-0206
Dear ~r. Strickler:
During our recent telephone conversation, I
advised you that the attorney does not represent
you, he represents the City of San Bernardino,
therefore the information you gave him was not
confidential. It is for this reason that your
complaint file is being closed.
If you are not satisfied with t~~ State Bar's
decision to close your complaint, yc_ ~ay request
a review of our decision. Your req~';~, which must
be submitted in writing, will be cO~c_1ered by the
Complainant's Grievance Panel.
Your written request should be d~rected to the
Administrative Compliance Vnit, Office of Investiga-
ti~~s, State Bar of California 1230 K~3t Third Street,
~os A~geles, California 90017.
~ery tr~ly ~ours,
---- - ~
....,a^J2_()rfo) Q.~
Karen Ortolani
Special Investigator
KO:dr
,/
-.J I::XHIBrT B
/.......
.....)
,
".~""
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOO NORTH "0" STReeT, SAN SERNARDINO, CAliFORNIA 92.,S
~ ':'\1ES F. PENMAN
:iTV ATTORNEY
."" JU.5J55
~ovember 17, 1987
Opinion ~o. 87-59
10.37
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
Re: Power of Council to Employ Outside Attorneys
ISSUE
The issue has been raised as to whether the Mayor.and Common,
Coincil may employ outside attorneys at public expense to
perform duties which the City Attorney would normally perform
and which he stands ready, willing and ab~= to discharge.
A~ALYSIS
The duties of the City Attorney are set f::th in Section 55(d)
of the Charter of the City of San Bernard~~o. As last amended
on April l3, 1971, this subsection reads as follows:
"(d) The City Attorney shall be the chief
legal officer of the City; he shall :epresent
and ~dvise the Mayor and Common Cou~:il and all
City officers in all matters of law ?ertaining
to their offices; he shall represen: and
appear for the City in all legal ac::ons
brought by or against the City, and 'rosecute
violations of City ordinances, he s 111 also
act and appear as attorney for any ~"ty officer
or employee who is a party to any l~~al action
in his official capacity; he shall ;~tend
~eetings of the City Council, draft ?roposed
ordinances and resolutions, give hi= advice
or opinion in writing when requestej to do so
in writing by the Mayor or Common Councilor
other City official upon any matter pertaining
to ~unicipal affairs; and otherwise to do and
perform ail services incident to hi3 position
and required by statute, this Charter or
general law."
/~..,
/""
J
)
",-,,'
James F. Penrr.an
November 17, 1987
page Two
It is important to note that throughout this section the
mandatory "shall" is used.
In addition, Section 241 of the Charter provides:
"The Mayor and Common Council shall have power
and authority to employ and engage such legal
counsel and services and other assistants, as
may be necessary and proper for the interest
and benefit of the City and the inhabitants
thereof."
The question then becomes, what
Charter sections to each other?
as follows:
is the relation of these two
The general rule can be stated
"Whatever duties are imposed on officers by
law must be personally discharged by them
and the City cannot relieve its officers from
discharging their regular duties by contracting
by ordinance or otherwise with other persons
to perform part or all of them." (2 ~1cQuillin,
Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed. Rev., Section
10.38, pg. 840; see also 52 Cal.Jur.III
"Public Officers, etc." Section 57 :~d House
v. Los Angeles Countv (1894) 104 C '3. 78.)
Nationally, with reference to legal officers the cases are
mixed. However, it seems very clear that :he decisions turn on
the individual charter or statute involved.
"It has in numerous cases been deci~!d that
where the corporation has regular c:~nsel,
charged with the duty of conducting 111 the
law business in which the corporati,~ is
interested, contracts for additiona, or extra
legal services are unauthorized. T.:is role
has frequently been applied to the ~~gagements
of attorneys by municipal boards, co~missions,
departments, or officials, for the ~erformance
of services within the proper sphere of
activity of the city attorney, or c:ty law
department." (10 McQuillin, Munici~al
Corporat!9D?, 3d Ed. Rev., Section 29.12,
pgs. 244-245.)
~/
-,
J
j
James F. Penman
November 17, 1987
Page Three
In the case of Denman v. Webster(1903) 139 C 452, the
California Supreme Court considered the claim for compensation
for legal services provided by Attorney Denman allegedly on
behalf of the San Francisco Board of Education. The underlying
question involved which individual had a right to a seat on the
Board. The Court concluded that the question as to who had a
right to the seat was not a public question but a private one
and, as a result, the Board did not have the authority to use
public funds to employ counsel for this purpose.' Since the
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco imposed on the
City Attorney the obligation to represent the Board of
Education, Justice Shaw, in a concurring opinion, stated:
"If the law provides an attorney upon whom
the board may call when a defense to any
suit is necessary, it cannot ignore this
provision and put the district to the
expense of paying some other attorney for
services which it is the duty of the
attorney thus provided to perform."
(at page 456)
In Dadmore v._~~Y-Qf San Dieoo (1908) 9'11.App. 549, the
City, by ordinance, created the office of o~ecial Prosecutor
and appointed Attorney Dadmore to that pc ~tion. After
performing the specified duties, he sougt: payment and was
refused. The court reviewed the charter ~:ovision in question
which authorized the city council to "employ other attorneys to
take charge of any such litigation, or to assist, the city
attorney therein." The court stated:
" . . . under the charter of the Ci:~ of
San Siego the City Council cannot r~lieve
a Charter officer of the city from :~e
duties devolving upon him by the cr .ter
and designate another to perform su
duties." (at page 551)
The court concluded that the authority in :he charter provlslon
did not authorize the employment of outsi~? counsel to perform
prosecutorial cuties.
In ~~~?~D_~OYn~Y_Y~ Shinn (1891) 88 C 510, the Supreme Court in
considering an old statutory provision re:1ting to the power of
boards of supervisors in general law counties concluded that
such boards have the authority to hire outside counsel. But
even here the court noted that such authority rested upon the
ground:
/'~.."."
"--'
,
'-"
...I
James F. Penman
November 17, 1987
Page Four
" . . . that the district attorney may be
incompetent, or sick, or absent from the
county, or engaged in other business, so
that he cannot attend to it, or the business
to be transacted may be outside of the
county." (at page 512)
Following action by the legislature in amending the subject
provision relied upon in Lassen, the Supreme Court once again
considered the issue in Merced COYD~Y_Y~_~QQ~ (1898) 120 C 275:
"There is no doubt that the enactment of this
amendment [limiting the power of boards of
supervisors to hire outside counsell was
occasioned by the somewhat common and
indiscriminate action indulged in by boards
of supervisors of hiring outside attorneys
to conduct county litigation. There can be
no question but that the district attorney
of the county is the officer authorized
by law to take charge of and conduc: such
litigation. He is an officer of t~~ county
elected by the people for that pur~:se and no
board of supervisors had (sic) the 'rbitrary
power to displace him in the conduc: of its
litigation and substitute other attorneys.
. . . If the board of superivsors could portion
out the legal business of the county as
appertaining to license matters to cuts ide
attorneys, it could likewise apport:~n to
such attorneys all other branches or legal business
in which the county was directly in:arested,
and thus relieve and deprive the di~trict
attorney of the very labors which a:~ devolved
upon him by the law, and which he w 3 elected by
the people to perform, and which un_=r his
oath of office he is bound to perfo,~"
(at page 277-278)
In the case of ~~IIi~m_Y. Barnum (1897) l15 C 6l9, the Supre~e
Court rejected an agreement to employ outside counsel to give
legal advice to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors since
the court concluded that such responsibil"ties were included
within the duties of the District Attorney.
"
In the case of Rafael v~_~QY1~ (l9l6) 3l C.A. 623, the City
Attorney of the City of San Francisco gave certain legal advice
to the City's Civil Service Commission, w~ich advice was
~
~
,/
~. ~
j
James F. Penman
November 17, 1987
Page Five
ignored. Thereupon, the Commission was sued on the basis of
those actions. The City Attorney offered to defend the suit
but the offer was rejected and the Commission hired outside
counsel. The court concluded that such employment was outside
the authority of the Charter and therefore illegal.
In MontgomerY-Y~~Y~rior_~9Y~ (l975) 46 Cal.App~3d 657 a
general law city took action to relieve its contract city
attorney of the responsibility of prosecuting certain other
violations, with the attorney's concurrence. The court, in
considering this question, concluded:
"Several authorities hold that a public body
may not validly . . . [employ outside personnel
for special services] where a regular officer
or employee thereof is obligated by law to
perform such services (citations ommitted)
and is willing and able to do so as part of
the ordinary professional functions of his
position (citations omitted).
"Although this proscription applie: to a
chartered city whose charter impose~ upon
one of its regular city officers tt, duty
to perform the services in questio~
(citation omitted), it does not ap~~j
to preclude a general law city from
employing special counsel to perform
prosecutorial duties where it has di~ested
its regular city attorney of such d~~ies."
(at page 668-669)
When read in light of the foregoing law, t~! Charter provisions
of the City of San Bernardino first quotec ~Iean that the City
Attorney of the City of San Bernardino has the responsibility
and must provide all the legal responsibil ties of the City.
However, upon his request, the Mayor and C_~mon Council may
employ attorneys to assist him in that dut_ both in-house and
outside. This may occur when there is mor: work than he can
do, when the work is beyond his expertise (such as bond
coun3el~, or when he is legally disqualifi2d. But the Mayor
and Council may not employ independent leg31 assistance when
the City Attorney is ready, willing and ab.e to provide the
service.
This rule has been codified in San Bernaroino Municipal Code
Chapter 2.20 although it is clearly the 13~ even in the absence
of this provision. Section 2.20.020 requl~es the City Attorney
,
,",.,,/
"-'"
James F. Penman
November 17, 1987
Page Six
to coordinate all legal services for the City. Section
2.20.030 requires all requests for legal servies to be directed
to the City Attorney. Of special significance are the
provisions of Sections 2.02.040 and 2.20.070. These sections
set forth the procedures and conditions for the employment of
special or outside counsel. Section 2.20.040 provides as
follows:
"Special counsel shall be retained by the
Council pursuant to Charter Section 241 subject
to the recommendation of the City Attorney that
such counsel is necessary in instances when legal
specialization not possessed by the City Attorney
is required or when the City Attorney is unable
or disqualified from performing such legal
services. Special counsel shall not be retained
when the City Attorney is willing and able to
perform the legal services as a part of the,
ordinary professional functions of his or her
office. The City Attorney shall advise the
Mayor and Common Council as to the experience
and qualifications of attorneys con:idered for
retention as special counsel."
Section 2.20.070 states:
"Any City officer desiring legal services
concerning City business from legal counsel other
than the City Attorney shall first i~form the
City Attorney of such intended reqwest for outside
legal services to determine whether ~he City
Attorney is willing and able to pro~ide such
services. No City officer shall be ,uthorized
to obligate the City for payment of ~ervices of
outside counsel without the express )pproval of
the Council. No City officer shall Jtilize outside
legal services concerning City busi,~ss without
the approval of the City Attorney 0, Council;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall
preclude any City officer from obta:~ing outside
legal services at his or her own ex~ense concerning
the personal or public rights, duties, privileges
or benefits of such officer as an i~jividual or as
an office holder, or from obtaining at his or her
own expense legal services of a private nature."
r",",,-
,
v
. "
,
......./
James F. Penman
November 17, 1987
Page Seven
CONCLUSION
The Mayor and Common Council may not employ outside attorneys
at public expense over the objection of the City Attorney to
provide the services that he is ready, willing and able to
provide and which is his duty as the elected City Attorney
under the Charter of the City of San Bernardino.
Respectfully submitted,
ARLOW
City Attorney
DAB:cm
cc: Mayor
City Administrator
City Clerk
....
-
~'\~'J
~,
......~, "
.. '.'.,
. ,
.... ,.
. - .. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
VEXHIBIT C
'_..'.
"-
.'"-...)
.I
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
,
- .
JAVes F, PENMAN
C;"T'V ATTORNEY
'i'", 38".5J55
June 30, 1987
Oon No. 87-36
10.37 700.1
Honorable Mayor and Common Council
Re: City Council, Power to Retain Counsel
QUESTION
Can the Mayor and Common Council retain outside counsel? If
the answer is in the affirmative, must the Mayor and Common
Council first obtain the approval of the City Attorney before
retaining outside counsel?
ANALYSIS
The question centers on the interpretation f two Charter
sections which seem to conflict. Charter 5:ction 55(d)
provides:
"The City Attorney shall be the chief
legal officer of the City; he shall ,~?resent
and advise the Mayor and Common Counc~l and
all Citv officers in all matters of ~:w
pertaining to their offices; he shal~ represent
and appear for the City in all legal,ctions
6rought by or against the City . . .
(Emphasis added)
Charter Section 241 authorizes the Mayor ar.. ComJ;\on Council to
employ legal counsel:
"Employment of legal counsel. The Mayor
and Common Council shall have the pOh~r and
authority to employ and engage such :~gal counsel
and services and other assistants, as may be
necessary and proper for the interes~ and benefit
of the City and the inhabitants thereof."
('f'
,
)
.
"
~'" .......
Mayor and Common
June 30, 1987
page Two
"-'
Council
---/
" )
The courts characterize the seeming conflict between Sections
55(d) and 241 as a question of a public agency's authority to
contract for special services where a regular officer or
employee of the agency is obligated by law to perform such
special services. The rule is:
"Two sections of the Government Code . .
expressly authorize a general law city, and other
public agencies, to employ and compensate personnel
for the performance of 'special services. I . . .
a public body may not validlY do this where a
reqular officer or employee thereof is obliqated
bv law to perform such services (citations) and is
willinq and able to do so as part of the ordinary
professional functions of his position.
"[TJhis proscription applies to a chartered
city whose charter imposes upon one of its regular
officers, the duty to perform the services in question
. . . " Montqomery v. Supreme Court, County of Solano
(1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657, 668, 121 Cal.Rptr. 44)
(Emphasis added)
When this rule and the general rules for t. ! interpretation of
Charter provisions are applied, Charter Se :ions 55(d) and 241
are not in conflict.
The applicable rules of Charter interpretation are:
"All provisions relating to th2 same
subject must be construed together s: as to
harmonize with each other. If two ar)arently
conflicting sections can fairly be g_len an
operative effect through a different construction,
that construction will be given to a ,id the
conflict. . . R (45 Ca1.Jur.3d, Mu. _cipalities
Sec. 59)
The two sections harmonize where the Mayor nd Common Council's
authority Rto employ such legal counsel. . . may be necessary
. . . R is read to make the Mayor and Commc:1 Council's
authority to hire contingent on a finding o:~. The ~
test is the one stated in the Montqomery ca,e. The Mayor and
Common Council must find that there is no :2gular officer of
the City required by law to perform the service or that the
officer is disqualified or not willing or able to provide the
legal service as part of the ordinary professional function of
his position. When construed in this way, :he apparent
conflict between Charter Sections 241 and co(d) is resolved.
,:
.
.
, '
Mayor and Common Coun~
June 30, 1987
Page Three
~.. ,/
"
San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 is a specific
expression of the Montaomery rule as it applies to the City
Attorney. San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 2.20.070
provides:
"Any City officer desiring legal services
concerning City business from legal counsel other
than the City Attorney shall first . . . det:rmine
whether the City Attorney is willinQ and abl_ to
provide such services . . . No City office~ shall
utilize outside legal services concerning the City
business without the approval of the City Attorney
or Council . . . " (Emphasis added)
In the absence of San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 2.20,
the Charter mandates the basic relationship expressed in that
section. Addressing the issue in another context, the courts
have given an insight into the policy reasons behind the rule
let out in Montcomerv:
"The law will not indulge an implication
that a public agency has authority to spend public
funds which it does not need to spend~ that it has
authority to pay for services which. . may obtain
without payment; or that it may dupl. 3te an expenditure
for services which the taxpayers have 31ready provided."
Joyner v. Stockton (1961) 14 Cal.Rpt. 49, 54.
CONCLUSION
The Mayor and Common Council may retain outz je counsel, but
they must first obtain a determination from he City Attorney
that he or she is either unwilling or unabl€ to perform the
desired service.
Respectfull submitted,
1;, -~
I(./,{
,( - I
-10HN F. WIL. lN
Deputy City ~ttorney
JFW:ca
cc: City Administrator
City Cleck
Concur:
-,'
.-a '...... / ~ 1"1r--~
,',/ City Attorney