Parkin Violates City Charter

On Oct. 8, 2017 and again on Jan. 17, 2018 the Beachcomber reported the story surrounding the jury verdict in the case of Thomas Gonzales, a former city employee assigned as a civilian investigator to the Citizen Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) in which the jury rejected what Gonzales’ attorney Kimberly Lind, described as the city’s retaliatory actions against him for making allegations of police misconduct.

The jury awarded Gonzales $436,000 in past economic damages and $300,000 in emotional distress damages.

Gonzales believed that an end had finally arrived to the 12 years of litigation the city had put him through. But that wasn’t to be the case.

Beachcomber reporting revealed that on Oct. 9, 2018 City Attorney Charles Parkin requested the City Council “to authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to agreement with the firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo for an additional $200,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $515,000.”

The request for authorization – which did not limit the extent of legal work sought by Parkin – attracted a large crowd from the Long Beach community to voice their support of the jury verdict and to protest extending Gonzales’ 12-year ordeal any further.

When the Oct. 9 council meeting opened, Vice Mayor Dee Andrews announced that the controversial agenda item had been withdrawn. He did not tell the community that the matter would be re-scheduled for a council vote on Nov. 13 – after the Nov. 6 election.

When the Nov. 13 agenda was published, Parkin’s letter outlining the extent and nature of the additional legal work he asked to be authorized had undergone a re-write.

The Beachcomber was unable to determine if council pressure forced the pull-back adjustments made in his second letter but the new draft excluded any reference to appellate work, in contrast to the open ended nature of the prior request, which could have been inclusive of permitting the pursuit – and supporting funds – of an appeal.

In his second letter Parkin wrote: “The amendment would authorize an additional $200,000 for litigation expenses incurred through trial and post-trial motions.

The council approved the elements of the 2nd request for authorization, thus limiting Parkin’s future legal work to “trial and post-trial motions.”

On Jan. 17 the Beachcomber reported that the law firm contracted by the city attorney to litigate the Gonzales case – having the council-approved $200,000 to work with – did in fact file a motion for a new trial.

The judge subsequently ruled: “Defendants motion for new trial is denied as the City of Long Beach did not meet its burden of persuasion.”

According to the council authorization, the legal work and related costs should have ended with the judge’s finding after dealing with plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees – but it did not.

On Feb. 4, 2019 the city’s contracted law firm filed a “Notice of Appeal for 1) Judgment after jury trial, 2) An order or judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 904.1(a) (2) and 3) Judgment After Jury Trial entered 9/10/2018 (CCP 904.1 (a) (1) and Order denying Motion for JNOV entered 1/3/2019 (CCP 904.1 (a) (4)).”

The City Charter states: “The City Council shall have control of all litigation of the city…”

When contacted by the Beachcomber for comment, Kimberly Lind, Gonzales’ attorney, said, “ The city’s relentless pursuit of this case, this man, without requisite authority, shows just how far it is willing to go to silence those who expose the misdeeds of its past and how unwilling it is to make necessary changes.”

The Beachcomber asked the city attorney via email for “An explanation as to the source of authority from the city to appeal the case and expend additional taxpayer funds in pursuit of the appeal filed on Feb. 4, 2019.”

The city attorney did not respond.

The Beachcomber filed a public records request to determine total taxpayer funds expended – to date – on the Gonzales case.

UPDATE

On February 15 the City of Long Beach notified the Beachcomber that "the City of Long Beach is withholding the records.”  The City Attorney asserted that "invoices related to pending or ongoing litigation are privileged and are not subject to PRA disclosure . . . “When a legal matter remains pending and active, the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice, including the amount of aggregate fees””]. 

The Beachcomber responded via email to the denial as follows: 

"We are in receipt of your email notifying the Beachcomber that our request for invoices related to the Gonzales V. City of Long Beach lawsuit are being withheld.  

The legal citations you provide to justify withholding invoices are incomplete and obviously designed to obfuscate the city’s responsibility to comply with our request.  

Multiple legal experts inform us that the invoices requested are not privileged, but rather must be redacted to exclude attorney client communications which are privileged. The Beachcomber's PRA must be construed in ‘ “whichever way will further the people’s right of access.” 

Please review the full case cited and reconsider your decision to withhold the documents: 

******

City. of Los Angeles Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1264, 1272, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674, 678–79 (Ct. App. 2017), review denied (Oct. 11, 2017)

Consistent with its content-based test and conclusion that invoices are not categorically privileged, Los Angeles County requires PRA disclosure of non-privileged content in an invoice regardless of whether the invoice contains other, privileged information. The court explained: “As with any of the PRA’s statutory exemptions, ‘[t]he fact that parts of a requested document fall within the terms of an exemption does not justify withholding the entire document.’ [Citation.] What the PRA appears to offer is a ready solution for records blending exempt and nonexempt information: ‘Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.’ (§ 6253, subd. (a).) While this provision does not dictate which parts of a public record are privileged, it requires public agencies to use the equivalent of a surgical scalpel to separate those portions of a record subject to disclosure from privileged portions. At the same time, the statute places an express limit on this surgical approach—public agencies are not required to attempt selective disclosure of records that are not ‘reasonably segregable.’ **680 [Citation.] To the extent this standard is ambiguous, the PRA must be construed in ‘ “whichever way will further the people’s right of access.” ’ [Citations.]” (Los Angeles County, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 292, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 107, 386 P.3d 773.) Thus, the “ ‘fact that parts of a requested document fall within the terms of an exemption does not justify withholding the entire document.’ ” (Id. at p. 300, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 107, 386 P.3d 773.)

We look forward to learning if the City changes its position or not.

Stephen Downing is a resident of Long Beach and a retired LAPD deputy chief of police.

stephen@beachcomber.news

Related Articles

City Attorney Squanders Another $200,000:
https://beachcomber.news/content/city-attorney-squanders-another-200000.

Jury Decision Validates City Hall Corruption:
https://beachcomber.news/content/jury-decision-validates-city-hall-corru....