My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN072596
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN072596
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:47:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/25/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Roush agreed that is one approach. On the other hand, Mr. Weinberger's firm has <br />successfully defended challenges to initiatives whether they were the proponents or opponents <br />of the initiatives, so their expertise in that area is as good as anyone in the state. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked why the rest of the Council was not consulted regarding who to hire? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated there was no particular reason other than the element of time. Given <br />the association the firm has had with the City in the last six months or so, he did not have any <br />reservations in enlisting Mr. Weinberger's support. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated she had asked the same questions and agreed the Council did <br />not make a decision on who to retain. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked about the reference to LAVWMA. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated Mr. Weinberger had been assisting him and the Livermore City <br />Attorney regarding a number of LAVWMA related issues including the EBDA negotiations and <br />potential ballot issues. He is representing the City of Pleasanton, not LAVWMA. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked the City Attorney if there were other occasions when this firm was <br />hired by the entire Council to look at other items; has only the City Attorney sought the advice <br />of this firm; and has any Councilmember personally used the firm. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that outside counsel is generally not used. The few times outside <br />counsel has been used, it has been on an as-needed basis, for example some of the San Francisco <br />related issues regarding annexation. Typically, Council defers to his judgment on when outside <br />counsel is needed and he has money budgeted for that purpose. When the City joined in the <br />Dougherty Valley litigation, Mr. Weinberger's firm was representing East Bay MUD as well <br />as other cities and it made sense to use his services as well rather than use other counsel or do <br />it in-house. Recently, when the City was considering an attorney to deal with water rights, it <br />was necessary to have an on-going relationship to assist in this area of the law. There was a <br />more elaborate selection process that has not usually been done on other matters. There are no <br />set rules on when this is done, however the process has worked well from his perspective in <br />terms of when he needs assistance, he has retained counsel. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated outside counsel has also been used in regard to labor relations. In <br />that instance, the City Attorney and City Manager selected the attorney. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti then asked if Mr. Roush was the only person who has used this finn. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush was not aware that the firm had represented any individual Councilmember. <br />The work the law firm has done have related to the City and Council in general. <br /> <br />07/25/96 <br /> -3- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.