1 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Item 16 C. OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 8:52 PM
Subject: Item 16 C. OPPOSE
To: <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Find another way to. waste tax moneywe are fed up with your constant efforts on our city funds to shut down the Council members who aren't aligned with ..
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
documentStaff Report PrintoutC. Request of Councilmembers Davis, Torosis, and Zwick that the City Council:
1. Direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal to ensure the City’s ethics rules apply to Councilmembers; 2. Direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal to initiate an investigation into recent leaks of confidential information disclosed in Closed Session; and 3. Direct the City Attorney to return with one or more proposals to impose penalties on Councilmembers and staff who inappropriately leak confidential information out of Closed Session.
Fed up with it already
Danielle Charney
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-C (June 11, 2024)
Attachments: Cover letter.pdf; Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf; Attachment C.pdf; Attachment E.pdf; Attachment F.pdf; Attachment G.pdf; Attachment I.pdf; Attachment J.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please add this letter and attachments to the Council packet as public comment on item 16-C.
Thanks,
Kevin
(Note that Attachments D and H are videos and will be sent with a subsequent email because of their size) ————————————
K e v I n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!vq3NybfkausNTRjbDThtVbNjwGu QU1-XvH1Wa65Bz2ruIxpYlXSt_ftGcTnePNew5woAnDSMqu1t8lrH9WuZF5EM7Uk$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
April 12, 2022
To Whom It May Concern:
I write as the most recent former Mayor of the City of Santa Monica, now retired after more than 22 years on the City Council, to share information, including public comments by current members of the City Council, that suggests multiple and ongoing violations of California Government Code section 54963, regarding Brown Act confidentiality.
As indicated in the materials I have enclosed, these apparent violations continue to have deleterious impact on the City and its constituents. Timely examination is indicated. My understanding is that the Public Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is the appropriate body to evaluate the information I’m sharing to determine a 54963 violation, or other possible violations.
In an ideal world, this referral would have come from the City Council itself. The Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office appears inherently conflicted, as the Council is its client. The City Council had two hours of discussion on the matter, over two separate meetings, but after approving an investigation at the first meeting a vote was switched at the second meeting, and further action lost on a 4-to-3 vote.
I shall also include in this referral email correspondence I had with the Councilmember who switched her vote at the second meeting. Just this past weekend I was advised by the current Mayor that a revisiting of an investigation referral by the Council seems highly unlikely, and she suggested that contact with your office could be initiated by someone not currently on the Council, such as me.
Thus, I submit to you this written summary of what I think publicly available evidence will suggest have been ongoing violations — by parties still unknown — of Santa Monica City Council Brown Act closed session confidentiality.
While I have some personal knowledge of the situation, having been on the Council when the leaks first became apparent in spring of 2021, that personal knowledge is itself confidential, and even in retirement I still feel bound by Brown Act requirements. I provide, therefore, information that has become public in our community but may not yet have risen to your attention at the Public Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
The City of Santa Monica has been attempting to hire new leadership at the highest level. Both the processes to find a new City Manager and to hire a new City Attorney have been marred by leaks that shared closed session information inappropriately, and greatly compromised the City’s ability to fill those crucial posts.
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
2 One candidate for City Manager, after being offered the job, declined at least in part because of the leaks, as reported in the Santa Monica Daily Press:
Bobadilla said he was grateful for the opportunity in Santa Monica but expressed regret for this matter becoming public.
(Santa Monica Daily Press, 6/10/2021, full story enclosed as Attachment A) Mr. Bobadilla said himself, in a letter he sent to the Council dated June 10, 2021 (full letter enclosed as Attachment B),
I am, however, truly disappointed by the way this matter became public. Unfortunately, this significantly compromised the situation and impacted my ability to have robust, confidential communications without undue external influence.
Since that time, and since I retired, it has become publicly evident that leaks continue to trouble the ongoing search for a new City Attorney. While a new City Manager (not Mr.
Bobadilla) was eventually hired successfully, the City is now on its third interim City Attorney in less than a year.
On February 8, 2022, Councilmember Gleam Davis had the following item on the Council’s agenda:
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council authorize the City Manager and the Interim City Attorney return to the City Council with a proposal to have an independent investigation of possible violations of the Brown Act by City Council members in connection with the search, candidate evaluation, and recruitment for the positions of City Manager and City Attorney conducted in 2021 and 2022. The investigation also would encompass possible breaches of the Confidentiality Agreements signed by City Council members in connection with these matters. Any proposal should include, as legally proper, full subpoena and other investigatory powers as may be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review of any potential Brown Act or Confidentiality Agreement violations that the investigator might discover in the course of the investigation.
(Official agenda notice of this item enclosed as Attachment C) Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
3 Introducing and explaining her request, Councilmember Davis said, We know for a fact that, in fact, that closed session did not remain closed with regard to the City Manager search, and in fact the name of Rene Bobadilla, who was one of the applicants, leaked — and in fact that was one of the reasons Mr. Bobadilla indicated he would not come to Santa Monica, because of the lack of integrity of the closed session and the problems with the process.
Before making the motion, Councilmember Davis added this, revealing that the closed session leaks had been ongoing and involved the hiring of a new City Attorney as well:
Now we know that sadly and unfortunately the names of candidates for the City Attorney position also have been leaked to the public, and that there have been discussions with people not engaged in the process, people outside of the Brown Act “cone of silence,” if you will, of various candidates for the position, and that these discussions, as I’ve mentioned, violate both the Brown Act and the confidentiality agreement that we each signed.
Current Santa Monica Mayor Sue Himmelrich seconded the motion, saying in part, When people don’t follow the rules, when we have people leaking information, when people outside our process know what is going on, when, when we develop what I think is now a reputation for not being trustworthy, it extends to our entire identity. I think it’s just so important that people perceive us as honorable and people who know how to do things right. I mean, I think that we look like – having it happen once was bad enough, but now having these leaks again is even worse, and I think that it’s our responsibility.
(The City video from which these statements were transcribed is enclosed as Attachment D)
After an hour’s discussion, the Council moved to support the request for an investigation into Brown Act confidentiality violations on a 4-to-3 vote.
(Official minutes enclosed as Attachment E)
Two weeks later, on February 22, 2022, City staff returned, as instructed by the February 8th vote, with the formal action to proceed with the investigation:
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
4 Approval of Proposal Regarding Independent Investigation of Possible Violations of the Brown Act and Confidentiality Agreements and Authorization of the Issuance of Subpoenas in the Name of the City under Section 614 of the City Charter in Conducting the Investigation (Official agenda notice and staff report for this item enclosed as Attachments F and G)
At that second meeting, again after about an hour’s discussion, one of the Councilmembers who initially had voted to authorize an investigation expressed unwillingness to go forward lest such an investigation perpetuate Council divisiveness, although at the same time she seemed to affirm that ongoing violations indeed had occurred. Councilmember Lana Negrete said, in part, I think there’s definitely probably things that have gone out and been around. I know I was called and “lobbied,” if you will, right, so that would mean that maybe people discussed what happened in that room, too, before we came out to vote, so yeah, I think things get out there. (The official City video from which this statement was transcribed is enclosed as Attachment H)
Indeed, the vote to approve the investigation failed to get Councilmember Negrete’s required fourth vote.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the staff recommendation, and include interviewing staff and applicants. The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra ABSENT: None
(The full official minutes for this item are enclosed as Attachment I) Several weeks later Councilmember Negrete was the guest on a Santa Monica Daily Press podcast where she seemed to suggest openness to changing her mind when presented with new information. I took the opportunity via email to suggest re-thinking the confidentiality investigation, and she responded in part that,
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
5 I also have other information and quite frankly felt that the CA's office was not doing all they should of done to address the allegations. The Integrity Review Board was not contacted; a process had not been followed and this would likely be the demise of any investigation. I also felt that there was information specific to 1-2 council members that I still don't understand why it was not enough to investigate those individuals.
In a second email to Councilmember Negrete, I reiterated that the responsibility lies with the Council, not the City Attorney. All three of these emails are enclosed, in reverse order, as Attachment J.
In conclusion, while it would continue to be my preference that a referral for investigation of possible California Government Code Section 54963 violation(s) would come from the City Council itself, I am following up on the current Mayor’s statement that a revisiting of this issue by the Council is unlikely, and that I have standing to submit all the enclosed information to you myself.
As the compromised attempts to hire a new Santa Monica City Attorney remain ongoing, I believe this matter is extremely timely and hope your office can review these materials promptly.
Kevin McKeown
Former Mayor
Santa Monica
[email protected]
(310) 393-3639
(Attachments A through J)
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
ATTACHMENTS INDEX
A – News story “Bobadilla rejects Santa Monica City Manager position,” Santa Monica Daily Press, June 10, 2021.
B – Letter from Rene Bobadilla to Santa Monica Mayor and City Council, June 10, 2021.
C – Agenda listing, item 13-D, Santa Monica City Council, February 8, 2022, from City website.
D – Video archive, item 13-D, Santa Monica City Council, February 8, 2022, from City website.
E– Meeting minutes, item13-D, Santa Monica City Council, February 8, 2022, City website.
F – Agenda listing, item 8-A, Santa Monica City Council, February 22, 2022, from City website.
G – Staff report, item 8-A, Santa Monica City Council, February 22, 2022, from City website.
H – Video archive, item 8-A, Santa Monica City Council, February 22, 2022, from City website.
I – Meeting minutes, item 8-A, Santa Monica City Council, February 22, 2022, from City website.
J – My email correspondence with Councilmember Negrete, March 19 through March 30, 2022.
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
!KB2QQQ
#-ODGQ'K2Q
:@A2>G;/9Q
Q#-;BQ'JG22JQ
&DD@QQ
'-BJ-Q#DB:/-QQQ
2-GQ
DBDG-.>2Q#-ODGQ
:@@2>G;/9Q
QMDK?1Q?;=2QJDQF2GIDB-?>OQ-B1QI:C/2G2?OQD62GQODKQ-B1QJ92Q2BJ:G2Q:JOQDKB/;?QD4 '-BJ-Q#DB:/-Q@OQ 122F -FFG2/;-J:DBQ4DGQODKGQJ;@2Q-B1Q/DBI:12G-J;DBQ:B G2L;2M;B8Q@2Q-IQODKGQFDJ2BJ:->Q:JOQ #-B-82G
Q (92Q8G2-JQ:JOQD4Q'-BJ- #DB;/-QQ>:=2Q->?Q@KB;/;F->;J:2IQQ9-IQ;JI DMBQI:8B:4:/-BJQ FDJ2BJ:-> -B1 /9->>2B82IQJDQ@22JQM9;/9Q A IDGHOQ QM;??QBDJQ.2Q92?F:B8QODKQJDQ-11G2II Q
IQADA2BJIQ?;=2QJ92I2Q-G2Q>;42Q/9-B8;B8Q12/;I;DBIQJ9-J >;J2G->>OQ:@F-/JQJ92Q?;L2IQD4QJ9DKI-B1IQD4Q F2DF?2Q Q1;1QBDJ 4DGQ-Q@[email protected]:6;/K>JOQ-B1Q12.-J2QJ9-JQ@:89JQD//KGQI9DK?1QJ9:I FGD/2IIQ9-L2 FGD/22121Q-IQ4-GQ-IQ;JQ9-IQ Q-@Q9DM2L2GQJGK>OQ1:I-FFD;BJ21Q.OQJ92QM-OQJ9:IQ @-JJ2GQ.2/-@2QFK.>:/ Q *B4DGJKB-J2?OQJ9;IQI;8B;4:/-BJ>OQ/D@FGD@;I21QJ92QI:JK-J;DBQ-B1Q :@F-/J21Q@O -.;?:JOQJDQ9-L2QGD.KIJQ/DB4:12BJ;-?Q/D@AKB;/-J:DBIQM:J9DKJQKB1K2Q2NJ2GB->Q :B4?K2B/2
Q Q9-L2QJ92Q8G2-J2IJG2IF2/JQ4EG ODKQ-B1QODKGQ/D>>2-8K2IQ4DGQJ92QJ;A2Q1;I/KII;DBQ /DBI:12G-J;DBQ-B1Q9DBDGQODKL2QFGD62G21Q@2QJ9GDK89DKJQJ9;IQ2BJ;G2QFGD/2II Q
Q/-BBDJQ12I/G:.2QJ92Q1:6:/K>JQ1:I/KII:DBIQ L2Q9-1 M;J9Q@OQDMBQ/:JO /DKB/:?QA2A.2GIQ@OQIJ-45Q /D>>2-8K2IQ-B1 .OQBDQ@2-BIQ?2-IJQ@OQM:42Q-B1Q4-@;?O
Q ,DKGQD452GQJDQ<D;BQ'-BJ-Q#DB;/-Q-IQODKGQ
B2MQ:JOQ#-B-82GQ:IQ-QMDB12G4K?Q/D@F>:@2BJQ.KJQ:JQI22@IQJ9-JQJ92QG2I;12BJIQ-B1Q2?2/J21QD4Q #DBJ2.2??DQMDK>1Q?:=2QA2QL2GOQ@K/9QJDQG2A-:BQ92G2Q-B1 J92OL2QFG2I2BJ21QJ2G@IQJ9-JQ Q4:B1Q 9-G1QJDQG24KI2Q-JQJ9;I IJ-82QD4Q@OQ>;42Q-B1Q/-G22G
Q
+9:>2Q QM;??Q>DD=Q4EGM-G1QJDQ/-GGO:B8QDB J92Q8DD1Q-B1QIK.IJ-BJ:-?QMDG=QJ9-JQ L2QIJ-HJ21QDB .29->4QD4Q#DBJ2.2??DQ-B1Q:JIQ/;J:P2BIQ QM:>>Q-?M-OI -FFG2/:-J2QJ92QDFFDHJKB;JOQ-B1Q /DBJ2AF?-J:DBQJ9-J ODKQ-B1QODKGQ/D>?2-8K2IQ9-L2QFGDL;121 Q QM;I9QODKQ-B1QJ92Q2BJ:G2Q'-BJ-Q
#DB;/-QDKB/:>QJ92Q.2IJQIK//2IIQ:BQ4:B1:B8Q-QMDHJ9OQ;JOQ#-B-82GQM9DQM:>?Q92>FQODKQ-/9;2L2Q ODKGQL:I:DBQ7GQJ92Q4KJKG2QD4QODKGQ/:JO
(9-B= ODKQ4EGQODKGQ2B8-82A2BJQ-B1Q;BJ2G2IJQ1KG:B8QJ9:IQG2/GK;J@2BJQFGD/2II Q
';B/2G2>OQ
&2B3QD.-1:>?-Q
/Q'-BJ-Q#DB:/-Q:JOQDKB/;?@[email protected]%9;?QGD/=Q
?2-@Q-L;IQ"G;IJ:BQ#/0DM-BQ"2L;BQ
#/"2DMBQ9G;IJ;B2Q%-GG-Q$I/-GQ12Q?-Q)DGG2Q
' '#
%'
"$
&'
!
'
'
'
'
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council authorize the Cit…in the course of the investigation. - City of Santa Monica, California 4/10/22, 7)33 PM https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1306&MediaPosition=&ID=4976&CssClass= Page 1 of 1 Log in | Help | Register
Search
Print This Page
Draft
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council authorize the City Manager and the Interim City Attorney return to the City Council with a proposal to have an independent investigation of possible violations of the Brown Act by City Council members in connection with the search, candidate evaluation, and recruitment for the positions of City Manager and City Attorney conducted in 2021 and 2022. The investigation also would encompass possible breaches of the Confidentiality Agreements signed by City Council members in connection with these matters. Any proposal should include, as legally proper, full subpoena and other investigatory powers as may be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review of any potential Brown Act or Confidentiality Agreement violations that the investigator might discover in the course of the investigation.
Information
Department: Records & Elections Services
Department
Sponsors:
Category: 13. Councilmember Discussion
Items
Attachments
Printout
Meeting History
Feb 8, 2022 5:30 PM City
Council Regular and Special Joint Meeting
Powered by Granicus
«Back to Main Site Welcome Meetings Notices Boards+
City of Santa Monica
California
Staff Report
4976
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Approval of Proposal Regarding Independent Investigation of Possible …er in Conducting the Investigation - City of Santa Monica, California 4/10/22, 8)00 PM https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1307&MediaPosition=&ID=5000&CssClass= Page 1 of 3 Log in | Help | Register
Search
Print This Page
Approval of Proposal Regarding Independent Investigation of Possible Violations of the Brown Act and Confidentiality Agreements and Authorization of the Issuance of Subpoenas in the Name of the City under Section 614 of the City Charter in Conducting the Investigation Information
Department: City Attorney's Office,
Administration
Sponsors:
Category: 08. Administrative Item
Attachments
2022.02.10-Independent Investigation-RFP Firm Solicitation Written Comments
Recommended Action
Recommendation:
Approve the proposal from the City Manager and the Interim City Attorney to have an independent investigation of possible violations of the Brown Act and Confidentiality Agreements by City Council members in connection with the search, candidate evaluation, and recruitment for the positions of City Manager and City Attorney conducted in 2021 and 2022. Authorize the issuance of subpoenas in the name of the City under section 614 of the City Charter in conducting the investigation.
Staff Report Body
Summary and Discussion:
At the City Council’s February 8, 2022, meeting, the City Council approved the request of Councilmember Davis as set forth in Agenda Item 13.D, which requested that:
“…the City Council authorize the City Manager and the Interim City Attorney return to the City Council with a proposal to have an independent investigation of possible violations of the Brown Act by City Council members in connection with the search, candidate evaluation, and recruitment for the positions of City Manager and City Attorney conducted in 2021 and 2022.
The investigation also would encompass possible breaches of the Confidentiality Agreements signed by City Council members in connection with these matters. Any proposal should include, as legally proper, full subpoena and other investigatory powers as may be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review of any potential Brown Act or Confidentiality Agreement violations that the investigator might discover in the course of the investigation.” In response, the City Manager and Interim City Attorney sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) to six firms, who were identified as having considerable expertise and experience to conduct the «Back to Main Site Welcome Meetings Notices Boards+
City of Santa Monica
California
Staff Report
5000
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Approval of Proposal Regarding Independent Investigation of Possible …er in Conducting the Investigation - City of Santa Monica, California 4/10/22, 8)00 PM https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1307&MediaPosition=&ID=5000&CssClass= Page 2 of 3 investigation. The RFP identified the scope of work as previously approved by the City Council and indicated that the expectation was that a final report would be completed within 90 days. The RFP requested that the proposals identify the attorneys who would conduct the investigation, their experience with independent investigations, fee structure, and cost estimates. As of the posting of this staff report, the review of the proposals is ongoing. The City Manager and the Interim City Attorney will have a recommendation at the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting concerning the selection of the most appropriate firm.
The firms being considered include:
Foley & Lardner LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP
Jenner & Block LLP
Summa LLP
The City Council’s direction also included the authorization to issue subpoenas. City Charter Section 614 provides that the City Council:
shall have the power and authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them under oath, and to compel the production of evidence before it. Subpoenas may be issued in the name of the City and attested by the City Clerk.
In conducting this investigation, the City Attorney’s Office will utilize this authority, as well its other similar authority under the Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.32.040, which provides:
(a) In investigating any matter where the City Charter, an ordinance of the City, State law, or Federal law grants to the City Attorney the duty or power to investigate, enforce, or prosecute a matter, the City Attorney shall have the power to:
(1) Inspect, upon reasonable notice, all documents, physical materials, and other items required to be maintained under any provision of the Government Code or this Municipal Code; (2) Issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of documents, physical materials, and other items;
(3) Issue written interrogatories;
(4) Administer oaths and affirmations and take evidence; (5) Petition a court of competent jurisdiction to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the answering of written interrogatories, and the production of documents, physical items, and other items.
The City Attorney may exercise these powers prior to or following the filing of any civil, criminal, or administrative action.
(b) The City Attorney shall determine and establish the form of the subpoena issued pursuant to this section.
(c) Destruction or concealment of items requested pursuant to a subpoena issued under this section shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as set forth in Section 1.08.010 of this Code.
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Approval of Proposal Regarding Independent Investigation of Possible …er in Conducting the Investigation - City of Santa Monica, California 4/10/22, 8)00 PM https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1307&MediaPosition=&ID=5000&CssClass= Page 3 of 3 Powered by Granicus
Draft
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The estimated cost is unknown and is dependent upon the cooperation of witnesses and the resulting complexity of the investigation. The costs will be monitored by the City Attorney.
Meeting History
Feb 22, 2022 5:30 PM City
Council Regular and Special Joint Meeting
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
From: Kevin McKeown [email protected]
Subject: Re: Post-podcast thoughts
Date: March 30, 2022 at 7:46 PM
To: Lana Negrete [email protected]
On Mar 21, 2022, at 10:26 PM, Lana Negrete <[email protected]> wrote:
the information made public is not always the whole story.
Clearly. That’s one reason it’s taken me over a week to get back to you, sorry. I wanted to have some conversations to verify what I’ve heard, beyond that which I saw happening first-hand while I was a Councilmember.
You said you
quite frankly felt that the CA's o!ce was not doing all they should of done to address the allegations. The Integrity Review Board was not contacted; a process had not been followed and this would likely be the demise of any investigation.
I’ve confirmed what I already believed: The City Attorney cannot on her/his own initiate or refer an investigation of the Council, because under the City Charter s/he works directly for the Council and therefore there is a clear and unavoidable conflict of interest. The only way an investigation of the Council can be authorized is by the Council itself. The premise has been that if a Councilmember is taking actions that work against the interests of the City, or that compromise the Council’s ability to protect and further the interests of the City, the Council as a whole will make an ethical decision for appropriate investigation.
You also said,
I also felt that there was information specific to 1-2 council members that I still don't understand why it was not enough to investigate those individuals
Wow! You have information I did not have at the time I retired. I had suspicions, based on whom it seemed the leaks were benefiting, but if you have actual information... that strengthens the concern I wanted to share: Lana, be careful that through knowing inaction you don’t make yourself complicit in what has already happened, or in what might happen if the leaking parties continue without accountability.
This isn’t the City Attorney’s responsibility. It’s yours.
Kevin
On Mar 21, 2022, at 10:26 PM, Lana Negrete <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Kevin! I want to first say that I respect your thoughts, insight and opinions and am grateful I have you to come to for historical references and just good 'ol council advice! I know you know all too well how sometimes the information made public is not always the whole story. This decision was not done lightly or just to avoid an awkward investigation. My initial vote was at 2:30 am and was for me a given - in the name of transparency. I also have other information and quite frankly felt that the CA's o!ce was not doing all they should of done to address the allegations. The Integrity Review Board was not contacted; a process had not been followed and this would likely be the demise of any investigation. I also felt that there was information specific to 1-2 council members that I still don't understand why it was not enough to investigate those individuals. This is just to name a few. The price tag on this investigation was going to also be much higher than the cap in order to get to the bottom of anything. After researching what something like this would likely cost Santa Monica in the midst of budget planning and consideration of rehiring back sta" after cuts, it felt that a process should be followed first before we opt to spend money on an investigation that would result in a huge price tag to yield any information that could actually implicate a leak.
I'd love to discuss further with you. Just wanted you to know I am not one to shy away from being uncomfortable at the sake of not being transparent. I consider things deeply and weigh out each side to ultimately get to what is best for the city. I don't think spending this money at this time is the way to find the leaks given the hearsay that is coming from the community. However, I am aware and always listening and in close contact with our CA o!ce and the appropriate processes and procedures when and if I am aware or concerned about any Brown Act issues. I also believe those that are not being transparent are going to have to answer to it soon enough.
Kevin, thank you for being a resource. I'd love to catch up with you on the phone soon. Let me know when your available!
Lana Negrete
Councilmember
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Councilmember
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>
Subject: Post-podcast thoughts
EXTERNAL
Lana, listening to your podcast with Evan I was heartened to hear your recognition that Councilmembers must make decisions based on the information available to them, and based on the long-term benefit of the community as a whole. I’d like to share some information and perspective based on over two decades in the hot seat you now occupy.
It is normal for Councilmembers to disagree, even to have embarrassingly public spats. We have never had seven Councilmembers who agree on everything. Still, as you said, it’s “a huge distraction if we’re fighting up there.” I agree.
However, an even greater threat to e"ective local governance is lack of trust, both within the Council as an elected body and from the community that relies on the Council for ethical leadership.
What I’m about to say is not theoretical. I was there on the Council when it first became clear to us that someone had been leaking closed session information in violation of both the Brown Act and signed agreements not to reveal information about potential candidates for City Manager. I know without any doubt that those leaks happened, and that was further documented to Santa Monicans at large by a public letter from Rene Bobadilla. This was not a case of no harm, no foul.
As much as I understand your wanting to squelch squabbles within the Council, and in full recognition that an investigation will be awkward, having heard you with Evan I believe that you may, upon reflection, agree that the issue of trust — both of the Council, and within the Council — should be evaluated ethically, not politically. Quieting conflict has short-term benefits, but in the long term our City will su"er far more greatly from eroded trust.
One of the arcane procedural options you may not have been told about is the ability to reconsider Council actions upon reflection or expanded information that shifts your perspective. Such reconsideration takes a call for a vote from one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side. That makes you uniquely empowered to step back, look at the longer-term implications of declining to investigate a violation of integrity already known to the Santa Monica public, and bravely stand for the principle that Councilmembers must be able to trust each other, and be trusted by the people they serve.
Thanks,
Kevin
——————————————
K e v i n M c K e o w n
http://www.mckeown.net
Telephone: (310) 393-3639
"Choose to be conscious”
——————————————
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024
Item 16-C
June 11, 2024