Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Consultant Contracts Groberson topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney urges rescind of Groberson‑related consultant contract; council moves to discuss in closed session
Summary
City attorney told the council the contract with outside consultants working on compliance with a prior Groberson settlement raises legal conflicts and confidentiality problems; contractors disputed those claims and the council recessed the item to closed session for further review.
City legal staff told the Los Angeles City Council on March 1 that a July 1999 contract with outside consultants retained to assist city departments in implementing elements of the Groberson settlement is legally problematic and should be rescinded and renegotiated.
Cecil Mar of the City Attorney’s Office said the existing contract does not create the confidential work product relationship the city normally needs when retained consultants gather information that could later be used in pending litigation (Groberson II). Mar said the contract, as written, emphasizes the production of a draft and final report and permits the contractors’ work to be discoverable, which the office believes could put the city at odds with its litigation posture. The city attorney’s office also said consultants have been standing on contract terms that limit interim collaboration and thus prevent the city from taking corrective action when consultants identify problems during fieldwork.
Representatives of the joint venture performing the work—Public Interest Investigations (PII) and the law office of Sharon Libek Hartman—disputed the city attorney’s account. The consultants said the city attorney’s office participated in the contract negotiations, that the contract contemplated draft reports and comment periods, and that much of the outreach and anonymous interviews required under the contract had been completed for non‑police departments. The contractors said they were roughly 75% through their work and that the city’s concerns were raised late in the process.
Council members expressed concern about reconciling the Groberson‑related settlement obligations (paragraph 10 of the settlement) with ongoing litigation and the need for actionable information to remedy discrimination claims. Several council members suggested that confidentiality and litigation strategy issues required discussion in closed session. The council recessed the item for executive session and continued items 18, 19 and 20 for further consideration. The contractors were asked to remain available to the council; no public vote to rescind the contract was taken during the meeting.
The transcript shows the council and staff agreed to address the matter further in closed session because the discussion touched litigation strategy and privileged matters. Council members and staff also noted the police department’s operational concerns about anonymous interviews of department employees and the contract administrator’s role (the Chief Administrative Officer had been the contracting authority). The public record at the meeting does not show a final council decision on the consultant contract; rather, council directed additional closed‑session review.
