Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

A confusing internal memo released by the City Clerk’s office raises troubling concerns of whether the City Council violated the Brown Act in deciding whether to approve joining a lawsuit challenging the ballot language of Measure M.

The memo dated September 7, 2016 is signed by City Attorney John Fellows and was written to the City Clerk. The contents of the memo contradict previous information provided to the public by the City Clerk’s office. In the memo, Fellows asserts the City Council approved the Measure M lawsuit in closed session at the July 26, 2016 meeting. In a prior communication, the City Clerk had provided minutes from the June 28, 2016 meeting as evidence of the City Council’s approval.

The contents of the memo are captured in full below:

On July 26, 2016, the Torrance City Council met in Closed Session under Council Agenda Item 14(c) to discuss anticipated litigation between Torrance and a number of other South Bay cities as plaintiffs and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as defendant. By a 6-0 affirmative vote (Councilman Rizzo absent), the Council authorized staff to participate in work on joint educational outreach concerning the Measure and to join in a lawsuit with other South Bay cities challenging the language of the Measure.  Final action was not taken that evening by the Torrance City Council, since the makeup of cities who would participate in the lawsuit was not clear at the time, nor had cost-sharing or non-disclosure agreements been finalized.  The lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2016. The filing of the lawsuit was reported in the Daily Breeze on August 29.  In response to the Daily Breeze report, the City Clerk received an inquiry on September 06, asking when the City Council met and approved participation in the Measure M litigation.  The City Council did not meet on either August 30 or September 6, so there was no opportunity to announce publicly the Council’s action of July 26.

With final action now having occurred and a request for disclosure having been made, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.1(a)(2), the City is now required to make the public disclosure outlined above.

In the memo, Fellows first indicates that the matter was discussed at July 26 meeting, but that final action was not taken. Oddly, later in the same memo he acknowledges that final action did occur. He also claims that the action taken at the meeting was not disclosed because there was no opportunity to do so.

California Government Code Section 54957, otherwise known as the Brown Act, requires that approval given to legal counsel to enter into litigation during closed session “shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held.” No such disclosure was made at the July 26, 2016 meeting. In fact, the minutes from that meeting indicate that, “No formal action was taken on any matter considered in closed session.” The video from that meeting corroborates the statement from the minutes.

Fellows conflicting memo raises the question of why whatever action taken by the Council at the July 26 meeting was not disclosed at that same meeting to the public per the Brown Act. If “final” action did not occur at that meeting, as Fellows at one point infers, when did it occur? To meet the Brown Act requirements, the Council would have had to meet again either in closed or open session to take additional action on the issue from what was approved at the July 26 meeting.

It appears from the record that such subsequent approval on the final action taken was neither discussed or provided.

A recent article appearing in the Daily Breeze revealed that Torrance had joined 6 other Los Angeles County cities in a lawsuit over proposed ballot language for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposed Measure M. Whether the City Council approved joining the litigation remains in question.

The article quoted Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Doug Willmore who noted that the City Council there voted to join the lawsuit because they felt “the county is ignoring the needs of southern cities.” No record of a similar vote occurring in Torrance seems to exist.

In response to an inquiry requesting at what meeting and agenda item the issue was discussed, the Torrance City Clerk’s office provided the minutes from the June 28, 2016 Council meeting and referenced an urgency item that was added to the agenda on the subject.

That urgency item came at the behest of Councilmember Weideman who sought direction from his colleagues as to whether he should vote to oppose the measure at the June 30, 2016 meeting of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG). The approval granted by the Council was limited to allowing Weideman to vote in opposition to the measure at the SBCCOG meeting. No discussion was held at the time with regard to any potential litigation and whether Torrance should join in a lawsuit challenging the proposed ballot language.

The lack of documented approval by the City Council raises concerns that someone within city government made the decision to join the lawsuit without seeking a vote from the Council. Should that be the case it would raise questions of who really represents the City and speaks on behalf of its residents.

To compound matters, the lawsuit itself appears lacking in substance. Indeed, the Daily Breeze reported that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel quickly rejected it just yesterday saying that there was no evidence the wording was confusing to voters.

Yusef Robb, of the campaign on behalf of Measure M, was quoted in the article calling the lawsuit “a political stunt that has nothing to do with the law or reality.”

Carson Mayor Albert Robles, however, stated that he and the other coalition members, including Torrance, were disappointed with the ruling and are considering an appeal.

The Daily Breeze did not report on how much the litigation has cost taxpayers in legal fees or will cost should the 7 city coalition file an appeal.

Municipalities already tread a thin line when it comes to taking a position on ballot measures as California Government Code section 54964(a) provides that, “An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the voters.”

Last Tuesday, the Council voted by a 6 to 1 margin to extend the McCormick emergency transportation and billing services contract for another year. McCormick received a ringing endorsement from Fire Chief Serna as data provided by the City showed they had met or exceeded contract expectations, including the critical response time requirement of 92% as reflected in the table below.

Councilman Milton Herring, the lone nay vote, expressed concerns about McCormick’s involvement in past campaign finance violations and said he wanted the City to undertake the Request for Proposal (RFP) process so they could evaluate other potential bidders.

Councilmembers Griffiths and Ashcraft joined Herring in expressing reservations about the contract, but ultimately approved the extension indicating their belief that there was insufficient time at this point to complete the RFP process. They also noted that they had recently voted to release a solicitation seeking other vendors for the service, but that such motion brought forward last April was not approved by their colleagues on the Council.

During her comments, Councilwoman Ashcraft stated:

“I have consistently voted against the City’s contract with McCormick Ambulance because of what I have perceived as a “pay to play” situation involving them during the election campaign of 2014 that got them the contract … It’s regrettable to me that McCormick thought they had to pay to play in order to get the contract, because I believe they would have gotten it other than that.”

Resident Linda Gottshall-Sayed, who previously served on the Ethics Commission with Mayor Furey, forcefully reminded the Council during the meeting that McCormick and the Mayor had broken the law and also urged the Council to seek additional vendors for the service in the future.

Prior to the vote, Mayor Furey acknowledged an e-mail received from former Councilwoman Maureen O’ Donnell wherein she wrote to the mayor, “Because of circumstances well known to you, please be honorable and recuse yourself from voting on the McCormick contract.”

With regard to the issue, Mayor Furey solicited advice from City Attorney John Fellows who responded by saying:

“There is no legal requirement for recusal here. To the extent that the request for recusal hinges upon campaign contributions generally speaking those are not considered an economic benefit to an elected official.”

Fellows made no comment on the unusual arrangement in which McCormick paid Mayor Furey’s FPPC fine and whether that relationship arose to a conflict of interest requiring recusal. Fellows has also thus far declined to pursue any action against the Mayor for violations of municipal law revealed in the Fair Political Practices (FPPC) investigation.

Perhaps due to all the hoopla surrounding their involvement in the 2014 election, McCormick was much less visible in the recent 2016 election. Required post election disclosures did reveal, however, three $1,000 contributions made to the campaign of Leilani Kimmel-Dagastino from representatives of McCormick. These contributions were made in late June 2016 after the election had already concluded. Dagastino was endorsed by Mayor Furey and the public employee unions, but ended up losing despite outspending all of the other candidates.

The post election financial disclosure also revealed another $14,846 payment to RFC Communications bringing the total paid to that firm to nearly $50,000. RFC appears to be the latest incarnation of Patrick Furey Jr’s political consulting firm due to it sharing a phone number, address, and client list with Furey Jr’s prior firm Liberty Campaign Solutions. Dagastino had hired Furey Jr. to work as her campaign manager, but tried to distance herself from him during the campaign by saying she only hired him to design some print material.

Furey Jr. resigned from his post on the Traffic Commission earlier this year after public outcry due to his role in the events that led to McCormick and Furey being fined $35,000 by the FPPC. In his resignation letter, he blamed extreme elements of the City he referred to as racists. In similar fashion, Dagastino attributed her campaign loss to racism as well as a “hate campaign” that was waged against her.

Furey Jr. still serves the City and its schoolchildren through his role on the Torrance Unified School District’s Personnel Commission. That Commission is designed to ensure favoritism and nepotism are kept out of the District’s hiring practices and that employees are hired based only upon demonstrated ability and not on who they know. Furey Jr. was appointed to the Commission by the California School Employees Association (CSEA) Chapter #845.  His mother, Teresa Furey, is still currently listed on CSEA’s website as its First Vice President.