|
| City makes hiring new attorney a private matter Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:43 PM PDT The city of Half Moon Bay has hired a new city attorney. You can read all about the hire on page 1 of today’s newspaper. What you can’t know — unless you are one of a handful of city officials in on the details — is how or why the decision was made or, for that matter, even who made the decision. While officials in City Hall have told you the outcome, they have shut you out of the debate. This is transparent local government? A reporter from the Review attempted to sit in on one round of interviews and was told the meeting would be held in closed session. Then, last week, the newspaper sent a formal California Public Records Act request seeking any and all applications submitted by attorneys and firms. While the city has yet to respond formally, it did allow us to see 20 form letters it sent to various firms, asking if they would be interested in representing the city of Half Moon Bay. It also gave us a seven-page list of questions it asked of those attorneys — important things such as the level of compensation required and experience they bring to bear and whether there are any existing conflicts with city business. It did not give up the answers to any of those questions. It did not even answer which of the 20 firms actually expressed an interest. In fact, the city didn’t provide any glimpse into the decision-making process. City Manager Marcia Raines considers this a personnel matter. Respectfully, we do not. The city isn’t hiring an employee, it’s signing a contractor. It’s not as if any of the applicants would be fired if his or her current employer found out about the Half Moon Bay job. Government Code 6254 (c) grants government the right to withhold personnel matters in cases in which the disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” That obviously doesn’t apply in this instance. This bit of secrecy for secrecy’s sake is all the more appalling because the City Council — some members of which were elected on a promise to be more open in their deliberations — made the last city attorney a fall guy for the Beachwood loss. Some have specifically complained that the last city attorney was part of a litigious circle of privacy that conspired to keep out the voting public. The hiring of a new city attorney — something that hasn’t happened for a dozen years — is of paramount importance here. The city is currently facing potentially disastrous land-use litigation and will likely continue to face Beachwood-like challenges. In point of fact, the city may not make another more important decision in years. Apparently, city leaders don’t value your input on a decision like that, only your acquiescence after the fact. — Clay Lambert |