LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY: To submit a letter to the editor for possible inclusion in the paper, e-mail us at letters@danapointtimes.com or send it to 34932 Calle del Sol, Suite B, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624. Dana Point Times reserves the right to edit reader-submitted letters for length and is not responsible for the claims made or the information written by the writers.

NANCY LEONARD, Dana Point

Since 2002, the City of Dana Point has contracted Rutan & Tucker, LLP for city attorney services. Recently, the Financial Review Committee (FRC), a Council appointed citizens committee, prepared a report that compares the retainer and hourly fee Dana Point pays Rutan & Tucker for contract legal services to our neighboring cities of Laguna Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano and Laguna Niguel.

The study found that Dana Point pays more for legal services than neighboring cities, some who are also served by Rutan & Tucker.  Given the alarming figures and that the city has not engaged in a competitive bidding process for City Attorney services since 2002, the FRC recommended that the City Council open a competitive bidding process for the city attorney contract.

This item was included as a closed session agenda item for the Feb. 6 meeting under the guise of it being a Brown Act item. The Brown Act is a 1953 California law intended to insure public participation on all agenda items before the governing body takes action. Closed meetings/sessions not expressly authorized by the Brown Act are in violation of the Brown Act.

The Brown Act does not require a governing body, the Dana Point City Council, to consider in closed session the FRC recommendation: to commence a competitive bidding process for a city attorney contract with an independent contractor. The Brown Act is clear. This item should not have been placed on the closed session agenda. Mayor Viczorek and Council Members Muller, Tomlinson and Wyatt stymied attempts made by Council Member Debra Lewis to place it on the agenda for open public discussion amongst Council members and the public.

Why this item was placed as a closed secret item remains unknown. The city attorney, city manager and mayor could not state the reason this item was being hidden from the public. Ironically, the City Council tabled further discussion on competitive bidding for the city attorney contract asking the city attorney to render an opinion on the legality of conducting such considerations in public or private.

I believe placing this item for secret deliberation violates the open meeting provisions of the Brown Act and prohibits our residents from participating in the democratic process. It is a shroud over the transparency of government our residents demand.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (3)

  • Another example of Viczorek’s complete lack of respect for the residents of Dana Point. Not bidding out the city contract for 16 years is a mind-boggling act of fiscal irresponsibility. On top of that, now he thinks that moving the discussion to closed session means we won’t notice how he’s protecting Rutan and Tucker, and lining their pockets with our taxes. Shameful. It’s time for a change. We need city council members who will put residents first over special interests like big law firms.

    • I urge everyone who thinks Dana Point should be run for the benefit of residents and taxpayers to attend the next council meeting and speak up in the public comments about the travesty of a city council majority that uses a unique interpretation of the Brown act to intentionally obscure their dealings in contracting with the city’s law firm. What are they hiding? Another sweetheart deal for Rutan and Tucker at taxpayers expense? This law firm has not had to competitively bid this contract in 16 years yet they bill our city more per attorney hour than their other client cities and get paid many hundred thousands if not millions annually by Dana Point taxpayers. See anything wrong with that??

  • Since this is a personnel issue it would have had to be in closed session. Do you want our litigation cost to go up as we battle another lawsuit? Also, the vote was 4-1, note to Capo Cares and the anti=growth folks, Wyatt voted for it. He is part of your clan, so why would he vote for it. Because, he realizes it is a personnel matter, so it has to be in closed session. One last item, if we hired in house counsel, do you realize they will be permanent employees? So, add 3-4 new staffers, paid at the highest rate, include CalPeers payments (folks these never, ever, go away), also, please be aware it’s hard to fire an employee, and you have a big budget mess on hand. So, contracting out these services are less expensive and more beneficial to the city. Ms Lewis misleads again.

comments (3)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>