Action taken on the status of City Attorney

From: L C

Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Action taken on the status of City Attorney
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and City Council members,

The public has been left in the dark as to the status of the City Attorney since May. You owe the public an explanation since the taxpayers are paying the expenses caused by your action.

Final or not, some action was taken to shelve or side-step the City Attorney. When did such "action" happen? How come you didn't report it in any meeting minutes?

Final or not, you have appointed the Acting City Attorney. When did such appointment happen? How come you didn't report it in any meeting minutes?

You have an obligation to report your action taken in the closed session and the votes taken for such action, final or not. Your action, final or not, does have significant financial burden on the city, such as the following:

1. The City Attorney is still employed by Cupertino with likely a full salary of $21,000 a month plus benefits.
2. The City has to employ outside legal counsel to handle the work load of the City Attorney. How much it has cost so far?
3. The City has to employ another outside legal counsel to advise on the employment situation of the City Attorney. How much this has cost us?
4. In case the city let go of the City Attorney eventually, the city has to pay a 9 month severance pay.

I hereby request the City Council to provide a summarized financial cost for the city to handle the shelving/side-stepping of the City Attorney since maybe May.

There has been a few closed sessions on "Performance Evaluation: City Attorney": May 11, May 23, June 5. Mayor Paul has reported "no reportable action at this time" for May 11 and "no action was taken" for May 23 and June 5. Well, some action was taken and it should be reported since the public deserves to know what happened to the City Attorney and when we had an Acting City Attorney.

The issue is NOT whether the May 15 minutes accurately reflect what Mayor Paul said when reporting out for the May 11 closed session. The issue is whether the "report from the closed session" on May 11, May 23 and June 5 accurately reflect the actions, preliminary or final, taken in the closed session. And the votes taken for such actions.

Gov. Code 54953(c)(2) states that "The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action."
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54953.
(c) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.

No where does Gov. Code 54953 states that the City Council only needs to report "the final action". The code does states "any action taken", which refers to "any preliminary or final action".

Therefore, the reporting of the May 11 closed session is likely not accurate since it appears some preliminary action was taken. Please follow Gov. Code 54953(c)(2)  to "publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action".

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident