The 10/27/2013 Orange County Register, under “Our Town – Brea,” published the following: (Reprinted here because many of you object to the OCR’s paywall which blocks you from reading articles via links shared here and elsewhere.)
“Amicus brief: Ballotpedia, a non-profit group that disseminates information on elections, and California Aware, which tries to improve agencies’ adherence to laws, have filed an amicus brief supporting ex-Councilman Steven Vargas in a court case against Brea over the validity of City Council authored rebuttals to 2012’s Measures T and U.”
What is an Amicus Brief?
Amicus Curiae, “… a phrase that literally means “friend of the court” — someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.” – William H. Rehnquist.
Ballotpedia and Californians Aware believe they are effected by the court’s decision and have filed an Amicus Brief, formal arguments with the court. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.
I believe the brief presents a strong defense of the claims made in the litigation by Vargas. Clearly, the City ignored the letter informing them of their error and chose instead to disregard the law and bear the costs of the litigation that followed. The whole matter could have been handled, without heavy legal fees, simply by adhering to the law when their error was brought to their attention.
Amicus Brief’s Conclusion.
You can read/download the full Amicus Brief here, or be satisfied by reading it’s concluding content.
“The fact that one of the present measures involved caps to the bait and switchers’ own salaries should raise an eyebrow of skepticism regarding any actions not completely compliant with the Elections Code. The City of Brea whether honest or nefarious in its mistake should not be permitted to swap signatories after the review and challenge period passed.
This Court must ensure that all entities play by the rules as clearly laid out in the Elections Code. Section 9283 is crystal clear that the ballot arguments need to be signed by whoever authored them and § 9295 provides the only means to correct a ballot argument during the review period. This was not followed by Respondents and this Court cannot allow a City to follow a different set of rules.
For the foregoing reasons, Amicus respectfully requests that the decision of the Court below be reversed in a published opinion that clearly holds a City is beholden to the exact same set of ballot argument requirements as every other person or entity. Amicus requests that the City’s signature box bait and switch is not allowed.”
Throwing good money after bad.
My last blog post, Legal Fees Or Legal Fiasco? (scroll down), will give you a perspective on the $154,000 O’Donnell has paid Markman’s firm and how outrageous these fees are in relationship to the work provided.
At a recent Council meeting, Brea resident Don Parker, made a reference to the City of Bell that drew a heated critical response from Markman.
Contrary to the rules governing conducting of public meetings, our City Attorney was neither asked for, nor did he offer a legal opinion.
Pretending he was the 7th member of Council, he blurted out a personal opinion that has no business being expressed while he was involved in the performance of his duties.
Whether discussing the recent unapproved spending of millions of dollars on water shares, the unsanctioned spending of public funds for private travel, the unchecked and rapidly escalating legal costs incurred to cover up a violation of the Election Code, the inadvertent approval of raises Council gave themselves or the brazen disregard for the law that resulted in a member of Council receiving a $2,000 fine from the FPPC for violation of Election law… the common thread is quite apparent.
The loose management style relied upon to run the city, compounded by the obvious lack of transparency and a history for sweeping matters under the carpet, leaves Brea susceptible to the same abuse of power and authority that led to the disaster in Bell.
Is Brea another Bell on the way to happen?
I’m not suggesting that anyone is currently engaged in illegal activities. I’m saying that the door has been left ajar and that opportunities are ripe for an unscrupulous individual or group to get away with serious larceny.
We need to replace Brea’s less than thorough policies and management guidelines with a set of rules ensuring that opportunities for corrupt activities is virtually zero.