Why has the appointment of Steve Miesen to the Chula Vista City Council caused such a stir amongst community members who have voiced their opposition?
Let’s start with the conduct of the Mayor, Mary Salas. She caused the problem by intentionally bailing out of her City Council post early. Salas never intended to serve out her council term because she has yearned to be Mayor for over 20 years. The voters allowed her to get away with the abandonment of her Council seat which then led to the vacancy problem. Did Salas ever come clean to the voters when she first ran for Council and tell them that she never intended to complete her term? No. Was her conduct at that time demonstrating that she was putting “the public interest above their (her) personal interest”? The Chula Vista Code of Ethics paragraph five requires your elected officials to do such. The selfish behavior by Salas, albeit legal, was contrary to ethics of our city.
Now the real fun begins at city hall. What to do about the vacant seat caused by Salas? Eventually, the City Council decided to make an appointment to the seat. That certainly makes sense on the surface because the other choice was to hold a costly special election. On the surface, this all sounds great. But hold on Chula Vista. You need to aware of what really goes on during an “appointment process”.
I have been a participant in two “appointment processes” during my thirty years of civic service to this city as an applicant for vacant Council seats. I have closely followed several others. I can tell you with absolute certainty that behind the scenes in these processes that “all hell breaks loose” literally speaking at city hall.
The Ethics Code tells your Mayor and Council in paragraphs 1-13 of chapter 2.01 to do some of the following:
“Conduct themselves in a manner that will preserve public confidence, should put the public interest above their personal interest, protect and enhance the image and reputation of the City, must be mindful of public trust and confidence in the exercise of their duties and refuse to condone breaches of public trust or improper attempts to influence the decision making process and be aware of all of their financial interests ensuring that such interests do not influence their conduct or actions.”
Typically, what happens during an appointment process at city hall is that most if not all of the ethics requirements go out the window. The phones start ringing with calls to your Council from all sorts of special interest insiders that want their chosen applicant to be favored. Clandestine meetings often occur. Then we have the problem of each Council member and Mayor who specifically favor applicants who will be most politically aligned with them. Essentially, each Mayor and Council member desperately seek the most friendly applicant for their cause. Notice through all of the history of appointed Council members, rarely if ever is one chosen because of superior credentials, civic experience which includes credit for having run for office and being vetted by voters. It is all about “who is going to be my best friend and ally.”
After contentious and bruising debates which even saw a temper tantrum display by Mayor Salas who stormed off the dais, all of the sudden after a several day recess, the name of Steve Miesen rocketed to the top of the list of candidates. Miesen has some of the least qualifications of any of the 44 candidates who applied. Why did Miesen all of the sudden ascend to the top and why did the City seemingly look the other way with all of the potential conflict of interest problems? Could it be that Republic and its prior entities have a long history of contributing tens of thousands of dollars to city hall politicos? Miesen and Republic have given generously to the current Council members as well as the Mayor and City Attorney. Ethically, all of them should have recused themselves from Miesen appointment. Taking money from the man they appointed is not illegal. Appointing the man they took money from and his company sends entirely the wrong message. Was the seat for sale?
This brings us to the Steve Miesen problem. Complaints have been filed with the city Ethics Commission and a lawsuit is pending charging violations of the Brown Act by city officials seeking to appoint Miesen. The lawsuit was filed by the Chairperson of the Ethics Commission. Simply put, had the Mayor, Council and City Attorney followed their own Code of Ethics, the nomination and eventual appointment of Miesen should never have occurred. Perception is reality and the perception is that the City Council seat was bought and paid for by Republic.
The matter gets further complicated now that the Mayor, City Attorney and Council ignore city ethics. Miesen, as has been reported is thought to have numerous conflict of interest problems. One of those problems is that it is thought that Miesen occupies a job at Republic, which has a sweetheart contract to be the sole source provider of trash disposal in the city. It can be argued that because of the contract his status with the City may define him as a “public official”. Republic is in a public-private partnership with the city. There may be a legal problem with this when the Attorney General of California reviews this case. If it can be legally opined that Miesen is a “public official” by legal definition, he would conceivably have to vacate his city council post. These problems are all called California Code 1090 issues.
Noted ethics and 1090 expert Attorney Grover Trask gives us a glimpse on the legal problem with retaining Miesen. Here is an actual legal precedent that occurred in another California city that certainly has implications in Chula Vista:
“ A city councilmember was also an employee of a private contractor, which entered into a contract with the city council. However, the city councilmember who was employed by the contractor did not participate in any way in the city’s decision. A violation of Section 1090 occurred and the contract was void. The employee/council member has a prohibited financial interest in public contracts with the contractor because all such business increased the likelihood or potential the employee’s salary or promotional opportunities being increased.”
The above case would apply to Miesen and the city right now. In essence, by law if the city wants to retain Miesen on the Council, it would appear that the Republic contract is null and void immediately.
A few weeks ago, the Ethics Commission met to hear from the private attorney hired by the City in order to represent the interests of City Hall. As expected, that attorney pulled off a razzle dazzle show and totally overwhelmed the Commission by repeatedly telling them that they had no jurisdiction on the Miesen issue. The attorney took a very expected narrow view of the Miesen problem and did not address thoroughly enough ethics issues or 1090 issues. The Commission at the very least has the authority to issue a reprimand to the Mayor and Council. I would strongly urge the Commission to do so. When there are complaints and lawsuits flying about how the Mayor and Council conducted their business, that should have sent a red flag warning to this Commission.
Of course, the honorable and ethical action for Miesen would be to politely step aside and save the City from further embarrassment. I ask again, did the Mayor and Council act in the best interest of the public by appointing Steve Miesen over 43 other applicants who did not have the issues and better overall qualifications?
Hall is a Chula Vista resident. He also filed a complaint with the Chula Vista Board of Ethics regarding the appointment of Steve Miesen to the Chula Vista City Council.
