A lawsuit challenging the legality of Chula Vista Councilman Steve Miesen’s appointment was amended last month to focus more on the city of Chula Vista’s decades-old process of filling vacancies on the City Council and on boards and commissions.
“It was amended because we wanted to streamline the complaint and make clear that our focus is on the city’s pattern and practice of using an unlawful process to make appointments,” said attorney Livia Borak with Coast Law Group LLC.
“It’s not just about council member Miesen. That’s just the latest example of the city’s historical Brown Act violations.”
Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling and San Diegans For Open Government, an open government advocacy group, filed their original complaint Feb. 23 arguing that council members and the mayor violated the Ralph M. Brown Act — the state’s opening meeting law — in appointing Miesen to a vacant council seat on Jan. 23.
The seat was left vacant after Mary Casillas Salas was elected mayor last November.
The lawsuit contends that council members and the mayor violated the Brown Act when they failed to publicly cast their votes that reduced the number of council candidates from 44 to eight.
The legal action also claims that a serial meeting occurred between council members and the mayor when they emailed their votes to the city clerk.
The amended lawsuit now alleges that the city has broken the law for years, using the same process it used in appointing Miesen when there was a vacancy on the City Council or Planning Commission.
“Plaintiffs/petitioners recently learned that the city has a pattern and practice of filling official vacancies in a matter that violates the Ralph M. Brown Act… In particular, members of the Chula Vista City Council are secretly provided with information about the backgrounds and qualifications of persons interested in filling the vacancy and then secretly vote on a slate of candidates whom they believe should be finalists for filling the vacancy. By design, the public does not get to observe this,” the amended lawsuit states.
Bart Miesfeld, head litigator for the city of Chula Vista, said he couldn’t comment on the appointment process the city uses or on the lawsuit because of “pending litigation.”
The new complaint also highlights the attorney general’s opinion regarding the lawsuit. The city has continually argued that a judge could not remove Miesen from office because that fell within the attorney general’s jurisdiction. But the attorney general’s opinion said the lawsuit can move forward.
Despite the attorney general’s decision, the city is still moving forward in trying to get the case dismissed at a Nov. 13 hearing.
Miesfeld said the city has a different interpretation of the attorney general’s opinion.
“The quo warranto process is such that the attorney general has to give the authority as a realtor to go forward,” Miesfeld said. “Our interpretation is that we are in the same spot as before.”
Shilling said the legal opinion is concrete.
“Not many people have an attorney general’s opinion that they are right when they go to court,” Shilling said. “The city continuing to use taxpayer money on an argument they know they will lose is something people should be outraged about. They wouldn’t do this with their own money.”
Another change in the lawsuit is that they left the remedy aspect open to the judge.
“We definitely want a declaration that the process is wrong because we understand that there is only so much time left in council member Miesen’s term. So we don’t want to focus on that more than is necessary,” Borak said. “We want the court to know that this is not something that ends with council member Miesen. It could happen again, and that it’s happened in the past. If for some reason the clock runs out or we are unable to remove Miesen, I think it’s still important for the citizens of Chula Vista, for our clients and for the City Council to hear that his appointment was unlawful.”
Shilling though did offer one remedy for the lawsuit to go away.
“Steve Miesen should resign so we can stop wasting money and move on,” he said. “If they thought they could win this case we would be in court tomorrow. Instead they are spending as much taxpayer money as possible to continue delaying a court date.”
