AgdaPkt 2003-12-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

TEA 1 J RECENT LEGAL ADVOCACY FILINGS The League would like to provide special thanks to the volunteers listed below who wrote friend -cf - the -court briefs and letters for their efforts on behalf of the League. League action and a brief summary of the case appear below. Copies of the filings are available at: www.cacities.orq /recentfilings. Public Attorneys and Conflict of Interest The League recently filed a friend -of- the -court brief urging the court of appeal to reverse the trial court's conclusion that public attorneys may not represent the city in matters that any attorney in the office was previously involved with prior to joining the city attorney's office even if ethical screens were used. The League thanks Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Clara, for writing the friend -0f - the -court brief on behalf of the League. The case involves whether a regional water quality control board can require cities to do more thnn the "maximum extent practicable" to control storm water or whether the regional board needs to comply with CEQA if it is placing obligations on cities over and above the federal mandate. The name of the case is City of Burbank v. State Water Re- sources Control Board, No. S119248,111 Cal.AppAth 245,4 Cal.Rptr.3d, (2d Dist. Aug 13, 2003); modified 111 Cal. App. 4 1" 990C, _Cal. Rptr. 30_ (Sep. 12, 2003). To request friend -of- the -court assistance from the League visit: www.cacities.org /reauestamicus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "W" ON LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT This case involves whether a public law offices may use internal ethical screens to prevent disqualifi- cation from representation where the city attorney, or any staff attorney, has a conflict of interest. The thal court concluded that the entire city attorney's office would be disqualified from representing the city in matters that any attorney in the office was involved in prior to joining the city attorney's office, regardless if ethical screens were used once they became employed in the city attorney's office. The trial court's conclusion would severely curtail the public's access to qualified and experienced legal counsel, particularly in larger cities, and increase the cost of public representation to taxpayers. The name of the case is City and County of San Francisco v. Supe- rior Court (COBRA Solutions), No. A103479 (1 Dist.). Storm Water Control Authority The League recently filed a friend -of- the -court letter brief urging the California Supreme Court to hear a case involving the scope of authority regional water control boards have over cities relating to storm water control. The League thanks Richard Montevideo with Rutan and Tucker for writing the letter supporting review to the California Supreme Court on behalf of the League as well as a number of joining cities. As reported last week, the League, the Califor- nia State Association of Counties and the Califor- nia Special District Association filed a ballot initiative October 30 with the Attorney General's office for preparation of a title and summary. The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (working title) would increase local control over local tax dollars by requiring voter approval before the Legislature removes local tax dollars from the control of local government. The following set of Questions and Answers ( "Q&A ") was developed to help answer questions from city officials and others about what the measure would do and why we believe it is needed. This information and more is available on the League's website (www.cacities.org/ initiative). If you have additional questions, please contact Mike Madrid at 916- 658 -8272 or email Mmadrid@cacities.org. Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act: Some Questions and Answers What would this measure do? The 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act would increase local control over Continued on Page 5 Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 3