The Chula Vista Board of Ethics cannot refer or seek the opinion of the California Attorney General on whether or not Councilman Steve Miesen holds a conflict of interest in his capacity as a councilman and as a division manager with Republic Services, the City Attorney’s Office said Wednesday.
The board had scheduled Wednesday’s meeting with the intent of deciding if it would refer the matter to the attorney general, but City Attorney Glen Googins said the board of ethics had no authority in making such a referral.
“With respect to conduct, what you’re allowed to do is what you’ve done already,” Googins said in reference to the board’s action in dismissing two ethics complaints.
Deputy City Attorney Simon Silva said that a request by the board of ethics for clarification about the Miesen conflicts would “taint” the evaluation process by virtue of the fact the request came from the board.
Board members had several questions as to what their abilities were.
Googins recommended that the board refer the issue to the City Attorney’s Office, but the ethic’s charter code doesn’t mention referrals to the city attorney, only to a “local, state or federal enforcement agency that may have jurisdiction over the matter.”
Ultimately, the board decided to continue to monitor on an ongoing basis the activity of Miesen and the Chula Vista City Council to see if there might possibly be any fair political practice concerns.
Chula Vista residents Russ Hall and Helen Prosser filed two separate complaints in February against Miesen , the city attorney and council members alleging that Miesen held a conflict of interest as a councilman while being the top chief at Republic Services. The board had dismissed both complaints for a prima facie hearing.
Silva gave a presentation of the city’s conflict of interest analysis conducted on Miesen’s conflicts with his job at Republic Services, the city’s largest contractor.
Silva said the City Attorney’s Office examined five conflicts of interest including: Government Code section 1090, Government Code section 1099, the Political Reform Act, common law doctrine against conflicts of interest and the city’s code of ethics; based on that analysis, Silva said, Miesen had a “remote conflict of interest.”
Chula Vista resident Jill Galvez told the ethics board that Miesen has an alleged conflict of interest because he serves two offices.
“As an appointed council member, Miesen has supervisory authority over the soul-searched Republic Services contract he negotiated with the city,” Galvez said. “Whose interest will he represent?”
Special Counsel Jim Lough said as of Wednesday he hasbilled the city 32 hours at a rate of $250 an hour for his work with the board of ethics.
Board of Ethics Chairman Chris Shilling was advised by Lough to recuse himself from the meeting. Shilling is in litigation with the city of Chula Vista over alleged Ralph M. Brown Act violations in its appointment process.
The City Attorney’s Office recused itself in the first hearing but did not recuse itself Wednesday because there was no longer a conflict for the City Attorney’s Office.
Galvez said the City Attorney’s Office should have recused itself from the hearing because it influenced the decision making of the ethics board.
“I don’t understand why the city attorney recused himself from the first meeting and then ran the show in this meeting, and advised the board of ethics about what they could and couldn’t do in one breath and in another breath they said well we shouldn’t really be (advising the commission) because this issue is about us.”
Vice Chairman Anthony Jemison said it was difficult for him not to take action on the item.
“For me it’s really just about trying to balance the interest of the public and what my official duties are and what the board’s official duties are,” he said. “And so I think we were walking a real fine line of trying to ensure that the public’s interests were being served within the constraints of what our present guidelines are.”
Hall said the city attorney bullied the board of ethics into not referring the matter to the Attorney General’s Office.
“This was a huge political cover job by the city attorney who has a huge political interest and they put on a razzle dazzle show and overwhelmed the commission,” he said.
