National City public speakers urge scrutiny of city attorney during performance review

Public commenters told the National City Council on Monday that City Attorney Barry Schultz should face scrutiny during a scheduled closed-session performance review, citing alleged ethical lapses, withheld records and contract language that they said leaves the city exposed.

Speakers during the public-comment period accused the city attorney of failing to disclose records and of relying on his private law firm, Devaney, Pate, Morris & Cameron, to represent the city in litigation. "Mister Schultz, you received this email at some undisclosed date with documents that you said didn't exist," said Michael Aguirre during the 1-minute public-comment slot. Maria Severson told the council she wanted fuller disclosure about redactions in produced records, saying, "The Public Records Act requires that when a document produced by the public entity is redacted, it must identify by name and title each person responsible for the decision of redacting."

Commenters also raised concerns about an indemnification clause in a developer's letter related to the Sweetwater and Orange project. Laura Wilkerson told the council the clause said a developer would pay fines "only if those fines and fees are agreeable to the developer," and said that language leaves the city vulnerable. Several speakers tied those and other complaints to the city attorney's overall performance, urging council members to consider the pattern of allegations while they evaluate his job.

The mayor and council moved into closed session after public comment to consider the city attorney's performance, among other items. Council members did not make formal public findings or votes on the record before entering closed session.

The public record produced last Friday drew specific criticism from members of the public who said dates and redaction justifications were missing. Maria Severson asked why the city attorney's photo still appeared on his law firm's website and whether the city attorney received compensation or benefits tied to the firm's revenues. Commenters also alleged the city had used attorney-client privilege to withhold or redact records; outside counsel and city staff were asked during public comment whether records were being withheld and on what legal basis, and commenters reported not receiving answers.

Council members did not respond to the substance of the public allegations during the public-comment period. The council's closed-session agenda listed a public-employee performance evaluation for the city attorney as item 5.1.

The council is legally permitted to discuss personnel evaluations in closed session under California law; the substance and any council direction or action from that closed session are confidential unless the council chooses to disclose them publicly.