1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
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
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