City Hall hires law firms to argue its suit against itself
City Hall has lost a bizarre legal attempt to attack the wording of a voter initiative by suing itself.
But a judge shot down the bid, and the group that proposed the initiative said the city’s attempt amounted to an extraordinary waste of legal fees.
Los Angeles County Superior Judge Yang has dismissed a lawsuit that attempts to thwart a voter-approved law that limits public officials from receiving gifts and contributions from companies that contract with the city.
Yang on Friday threw out the city of Santa Monica’s suit against its own clerk, who refused to enforce Proposition LL, passed by Santa Monica voters in 2000, because she feels it’s unconstitutional.
The suit, filed in June by the city against city clerk Maria Stewart, sought to clarify the legal validity of the measure, which blocks officials who award contracts more than $25,000 from receiving campaign contributions, gifts or employment from the party to whom the benefit was awarded.
Stewart argued she could not enforce the initiative because it violates state and federal rights of free speech and free association. Hers is an argument routinely used against campaign finance laws. Some also argue that such measures are vague and unfairly restrict elected officials’ rights.
Stewart’s defense rested on the argument that it’s unfair to limit only those who vote in favor of a contract when an official could also benefit from denying one, a notion that isn’t considered in the voter-approved law.
Sources said the city felt that the measure was so poorly written that it needed clarification, and it hoped Yang would provide some.
Instead, Yang’s decision means the city will have to enforce the measure, which was originally introduced by the Oaks Project, a Santa Monica-based organizing branch of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
The Oaks Project intervened in the case, challenging the city’s position as plaintiff and defendant. It argued that there was no real controversy between them.
Judge Yang agreed. Because she dismissed the case on procedural grounds, she skirted the question of whether the measure is valid. Yang ruled that the city had no legal grounds to sue, because it didn’t stand to sustain “direct or threatened injury.” Neither the city nor its clerk had a legal basis to sue, Yang noted.
The city and Stewart hired separate, outside law firms to represent both sides because the city attorney’s office couldn’t represent either of them.
It’s unknown how much lawyers have billed both city entities in the case.
However, Oaks Project Director Carmen Balber said her organization will seek damages to ensure that taxpayers don’t foot the bill on an attempt by “the city council to avoid taking the preventive medicine prescribed by the people of Santa Monica.”
“The city proceeded to spend money in the prosecution and defense to thwart this initiative,” she said. “Someone other than the taxpayer should be on the hook for this.
“It’s a joke of a case and quite frankly, completely beyond us,” she added. “The posture of the city’s case was so outrageous.”
David Pettit, the attorney representing the city, said the council would have supported the measure with a few changes that addressed First Amendment rights.
The city wanted to know to what extent the Santa Monica measure would inhibit free speech based on Stewart’s arguments, he added.
“Maria Stewart took the view that she wasn’t going to enforce it because it was unconstitutional,” Pettit said. “I really don’t have a problem with a staff person standing up on their own beliefs. We recognized the obligation by the city to enforce the initiative but we wanted clarification.”
Voters in Claremont, Pasedena and San Francisco passed similar measures promoted by the Oaks Project but only San Francisco is currently enforcing it. Claremont and Paseneda tried to kill the laws but were denied last fall, according to the Oaks Project.
It is unclear whether the city will appeal Yang’s decision and when the law will take effect.
Oaks Project volunteer Susanne Griffin is relieved by Yang’s decision because she knows that her efforts are not in vain.
“We can be thankful that Judge Yang saw through Santa Monica’s attempt to nullify a tough reform law and the foolish waste of taxpayer dollars,” she said. “It is now time to pick up the pieces of voters’ shattered confidence and implement the good government measure embraced by 59 percent of Santa Monica voters.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 3, 2002. Read the original PDF.