Laserfiche WebLink
If anyone wishes to speak to that item, fill out a speaker card and give it to the City Clerk as <br />soon as possible. Depending on the number of speakers, time may have to be limited. <br /> <br />4. MEETIN(~ OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> <br /> Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he was concerned about the proposal <br />to put certain issues on the November ballot. It was his understanding that the City Attorney <br />has advised Council that these measures would not withstand legal challenge. The Council then <br />sought outside counsel to get a second opinion. It seems when Council does not like an answer, <br />it continues to ask the question until it gets the answer it wants. In addition, he understands the <br />law firm selected has done work for the City of Livermore and the Sierra Club. He believed <br />these were two conflicts of interest. He requested a continuance on the two issues for the ballot <br />until the conflict of interest can be evaluated. He also was opposed to the City wasting city <br />funds on attorneys with a conflict of interest and defending almost certain legal challenges if <br />either of the ballot measures are adopted. He preferred the money being spent on things <br />Pleasanton really needs, like a new city hall. He indicated his displeasure at the modular <br />building installed on Bernal Avenue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated the City Attorney's opinion was not in conflict with the second <br />opinion. The issue is a difficult issue and it should be handled correctly. He did not believe <br />there was a conflict of interest and asked the City Attorney to elaborate. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked who chose the attorney. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated he had never advised Council that the ballot measures were not legal <br />in any manner. Concerns were expressed to make sure the measures were as bulletproof as <br />possible and therefore the firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger was retained to review the <br />initiatives. This firm has extensive expertise regarding initiatives. A number of changes were <br />suggested and are before Council for review. Mr. Roush welcomed the input, but he did not <br />feel the request for additional support was because he had advised Council the measures were <br />invalid or illegal. In terms of the alleged conflict of interest, the firm has always acknowledged <br />that it has represented the City of Livermore in certain matters. There could come a time when <br />there may be a conflict of interest between the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore and <br />in that case the law firm would no longer represent one of the two cities. Most likely it would <br />continue to represent the City of Livermore, since it has a longer professional relationship with <br />Livermore. This law firm has assisted the City of Pleasanton in a number of other cases, e.g., <br />the Dougherty Valley litigation, the LAVWMA negotiations, etc. Mr. Roush has come to rely <br />on the advice of Mark Weinberger and other members of his firm. It is true the Mayor <br />requested that he contact Mr. Weinberger to review this situation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that in order to make the initiatives bulletproof, it would have been better <br />to hire an attorney on the opposite side of the issues to indicate what the opposition might try <br />to do and determine how to defend that rather than an attorney who is sympathetic. <br /> <br />07/25/96 <br /> -2- <br /> <br /> <br />