SR 06-14-2022 13E 13.E
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.E Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra that the Council
direct the City Attorney to advise the City Council and provide options for
consideration at the July 12, 2022 City Council meeting, including the
appointment of independent special counsel, to handle litigation in which
the City and one or more members of the City Council are named parties on
opposite sides, so as to avoid the City Attorney being adverse to any
member(s) of the City Council.
13.E
Packet Pg. 1920
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ted Winterer <tedwinterer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 12:21 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan
Subject:Items 13-D and 13-E, 6/14/22
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers,
Items 13‐D and 13‐E on your June 14th agenda, promulgated by Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra, strike me
as short‐sighted and in the long run disadvantageous to the taxpayers of Santa Monica. What is the purpose of
almost immediately putting constraints on a newly‐hired City Attorney? And why should Councilmembers who choose
to sue the city they serve be treated with kid gloves?
In the big picture I don't understand the underlying goal of eviscerating the City Attorney's Office: dedicated public
servants who could earn four to five times more in the private sector and who have, among a myriad of
accomplishments, procured hundreds of millions of dollars from polluters of our local aquifers and negotiated a Federal
consent decree which allows for local control of billions of dollars of land at Santa Monica Airport. Those are pretty good
deals for the taxpayers.
But let's look at the particulars. Item 13‐D would cap expenditures for outside counsel at $400 per hour. The City is
routinely sued by attorneys who earn over $1000 an hour; responding with lawyers who earn less in a free market
because they are less qualified is like sending someone into a knife fight with one hand tied behind their back. So the
taxpayers are likely to pay out more in settlements and lost cases
Consider the specifics of the future use of the airport. Closing it for a use which serves many more residents than
it currently does likely entails additional legal work. When I was on the Council our outside aviation experts charged
$1200‐1500 per hour and given inflation their rate is likely higher now. So the City Attorney cannot hire similarly
experienced outside counsel in the future? One could argue the proposal exempts aviation as "specialized work" even
though it's not listed, but it also caps the work of such outside counsel at 20 hours. Does anyone think under 20 hours of
work would be required in this scenario? Does anyone under 20 hours of outside legal expertise will be required to go
after the polluters of our new water wells?
The proponents of this item will no doubt argue that approval by the City Council would override all these constraints on
the City Attorney's office. You've all acknowledged that Council meetings are already too long ‐‐ should there be a new
agenda item every time the City needs to litigate over the delivery of a defective fire engine or defend itself in a BBB
accident? That's not the way to govern, as it's a slippery slope that leads to micromanaging of the SMPD or
Resource Recovery by part‐time policy makers who are not experts in these areas. Instead, hire the best people you can
and let the professionals run their departments, including the City Attorney.
And what if someone sues the City over provisions in the City Charter approved by the voters such as rent control? If
there are four Councilmembers who are opposed to rent control and refuse to authorize the funds for a defense,
wouldn't that be overriding the will of the people?
As for item 13‐E, the City Charter establishes that the Attorney shall "represent and advise the City Council and all City
officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices." So are we talking about a Charter amendment to be voted upon
Item 13.E 06/14/22
1 of 2 Item 13.E 06/14/22
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Written Comments (5185 : Independent Special Counsel)
2
by the Santa Monicans? Or should any Councilmember who elects to sue the City (and by extension the residents of
Santa Monica) put on his or her big boy/big girl pants and acknowledge that such litigation creates adversity. There are
no participation trophies in lawsuits.
Please do not approve agenda items 13‐D and 13‐E.
Regards,
Ted Winterer
‐‐
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 13.E 06/14/22
2 of 2 Item 13.E 06/14/22
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Written Comments (5185 : Independent Special Counsel)