The state Attorney General’s Office ruled that a quo warranto is not needed to remove appointed Chula Vista Councilman Steve Miesen from office in a lawsuit filed by San Diegans for Open Government and Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling.
A quo warranto is a special action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office he or she occupies.
The lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court on Feb. 23 claims that council members and the mayor violated the Ralph M. Brown Act — the state’s open meeting law — in appointing Miesen to a vacant City Council seat on Jan. 23.
Shilling contends that council members allegedly held a serial meeting with the city clerk in emailing their votes for potential City Council candidates.
He also argues that council members voted in secret during the nomination process.
The city has contended in court documents that the local courts do not have the authority to remove Miesen from office because that falls within the attorney general’s jurisdiction.
But the attorney general’s opinion last week states that in this instance a quo warranto is not necessary or warranted
“Given the nature of the plaintiffs’ claims, we find that plaintiffs have pursued an appropriate legal remedy, and that there is no basis or need to invoke quo warranto procedures under the circumstance,” the opinion reads.
Because the lawsuit is based on alleged Brown Act violations, the attorney general said the lawsuit is the right remedy for this case and should Shilling win in court, Miesen’s appointment would be declared “null and void.”
“…Mr. Miesen’s potential removal from office in the present case is merely incidental to the main question whether defendants violated the Brown Act with respect to this particular action taken.”
Shilling’s attorney Cory Briggs said the attorney general made the correct ruling.
“We are very pleased that the attorney general has come in on the side of open government and the citizens’ right to protect open government,” he said.
Bart Miesfeld, the head litigator for the city of Chula Vista, declined to comment for this story because he is still “analyzing the impact of the letter.”
Shilling said he knew all along that the courts had the ability to remove Miesen and that the city’s defense of a quo warranto was just a “roadblock” the city had created in the case.
Miesfeld said the city has spent close to $70,000 defending the suit.
Shilling said that money spent on this lawsuit could best be used somewhere else.
“I think the money could be better spent,” he said. “I wish they wouldn’t have forced us into this position.”
Briggs said he would now ask the city to drop its request for the court to dismiss the case for a hearing scheduled next month.
In April a San Diego Superior Court judge denied Shilling’s temporary restraining order against Miesen that would have prevented him from serving as the tie breaking vote as well as from the city of using the same process in which Miesen was appointed.
Shilling agreed to drop his motion for a preliminary injunction in exchange for the city no longer using the process to fill any vacancies on the council or Planning Commission until the lawsuit is resolved.
Shilling has maintained his lawsuit has nothing to do with Miesen and everything to do with breaking the law.
“I’m looking forward to going to court and arguing the merits of the case so that the judge can decide whether the Brown Act was violated and whether or not Steve Miesen is a legal council member,” Shilling said.
