Posted on 01/11/2006 6:43:04 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Private attorneys for former Mayor Dick Murphy and four City Council members have adamantly opposed releasing their legal bills from the ongoing pension investigation and have threatened to take the city to court to keep the information from getting out.
So far, the lawyers have charged more than $1.5 million, but no details from the invoices have been disclosed. Documents released last night to The San Diego Union-Tribune show the extent to which the politicians' attorneys are fighting to keep the billings secret.
The request for the billings, made by the Union-Tribune under the state Public Records Act, has led to seven weeks of debate among the council members, their attorneys, the Mayor's Office, the City Attorney's Office and the Auditor's Office.
The lawyers contend that attorney-client privilege trumps the public's right to see the documents. The lawyers represent Murphy and council members Toni Atkins, Jim Madaffer, Brian Maienschein and Scott Peters.
Mayor Jerry Sanders reiterated yesterday that he believes the records should be released in some form, and he said his staff is working to do that. He blamed the previous city administration for failing to promptly make the records public.
"The taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent. I think the council members have a different opinion on that," said Sanders, who took office Dec. 5.
As recently as Monday, lawyers for the council members were opposing Sanders' effort to release the records.
Two attorneys wrote letters asking that all specific information about services performed be redacted from the documents. They insisted on being involved in blacking out information or at least being allowed to review the documents before their release.
None of the attorneys want anyone from the City Attorney's Office to review the documents. City Attorney Michael Aguirre has launched his own pension investigations and has frequently accused council members of wrongdoing.
"The City Attorney's Office has a conflict in that it is potentially adverse to our clients. . . . The City Attorney has also repeatedly threatened to sue the council members concerning pension fund matters," said Sean Prosser, an attorney with Morrison Foerster, which represents Atkins and Maienschein.
Prosser asked for 72 hours' notice before release of the records "so we can evaluate and pursue appropriate remedies."
In some cases, council members themselves asked to review the documents before they were released.
In a Dec. 5 e-mail to Assistant City Auditor Larry Tomanek, Atkins said, "I want to see exactly what you intend to turn over before it goes out."
Madaffer, in a Dec. 3 e-mail to Tomanek, wrote: "It is my assertion the bills are privileged attorney-client work product. My attorney, Tom Zaccaro, will provide you with a letter on Monday stating that we decline to waive the attorney-client privilege at this time."
In a Dec. 5 e-mail to the council members, Tomanek said he would not release the legal bills to the Union-Tribune after the council members' attorneys contacted the City Manager's Office.
"However, I believe that UT will challenge this stance. We'll deal with it when it comes," Tomanek wrote.
Sanders, who is trying to build a consensus on the council for his agenda, said he realizes his willingness to release the records could hurt him politically.
"It is going to put me at the odds of a few council members, but . . . I have to do what I think is right," Sanders said.
Peters, the council president, said he is willing to have his legal bills released but that his lawyer has advised against it.
"Attorneys are very conservative about maintaining the privilege and I respect that," said Peters, a nonpracticing lawyer.
One of the law firms argued that the City Attorney's Office – as well as the public – should not be given copies of the bills that detail the services the outside lawyers have provided.
Peters said Aguirre has "made it very clear that he's adverse to us, and he's threatened to sue us, I think as recently as last week. It's an unfortunate situation to be in."
The City Attorney's Office reviews the bills of 40 city workers who are being questioned as part of state and federal investigations of San Diego's finances and pension system, Aguirre said.
He said there is no reason he shouldn't look at the council members' bills.
The private attorneys are "not worried about what I see," Aguirre said. "The concern may be what the public finds out."
San Diego has been in legal turmoil since federal investigators confirmed two years ago that they were looking into the city's financial practices.
The probes followed a year of questions over the fitness of the city's pension system, which after years of city underfunding and employee benefit increases was found to have a growing deficit. Sanders recently said the deficit could be $2 billion.
The city has spent nearly $25 million on other pension-related expenses, including the auditing and legal costs of two independent inquiries into its finances.
Maienschein said he believes the dispute over the release of the legal bills is a waste of time, because the public already knows how much has been spent overall.
The city has retained a retired judge to review the legal bills.
"Clearly, that would be sufficient enough to ensure that the money was being used properly," Maienschein said. "That assures that the money was properly allocated and, at the same time, that anybody's privacy issues are respected."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.