National City residents raise ethics concerns about city attorney hiring of outside counsel

Several National City residents urged the City Council during public comment to scrutinize the city attorney's use of outside counsel and handling of public-records matters, raising ethics questions ahead of a closed-session performance review.

Speakers alleged that Mr. Schultz, the city attorney, had retained his former law firm — referred to in the meeting as Devaney Pate (DVMP) — to work on a public-records dispute without explicit council authorization, and that the city attorney's office had claimed all responsive records were produced despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Those issues were cited repeatedly as relevant to the council's upcoming closed-session evaluation.

Michael Aguirre, a resident, told the council that the city attorney "without approval from your counsel hired an outside lawyer to work on the public records case that your city attorney said the city had already produced all the records." Alicia Morrison, another commenter, asked directly, "Is this ethical?" and urged the council to consider those ethical concerns as part of the evaluation.

Several speakers pressed for clarity on who had authority to retain outside counsel. Maria Severson, who identified herself as a National City resident, referenced the municipal code's Chapter 2.02 and said the chapter "talks about charging and control over civil actions and, to select outside counsel," but noted it does not explicitly describe authority to contract and obligate the city to pay outside counsel in the way residents described. Severson asked why a Brown Act or public-records matter would be outsourced rather than handled by the publicly retained city attorney.

Louise McCarthy questioned whether the city has adequate oversight over legal spending and said, "If I were in your shoes ... I would want a watchdog, not a lapdog," urging more scrutiny of the city attorney's practice of hiring outside firms for records matters. Mica Blanco and other commenters repeatedly said they had seen contradictions between the city attorney's statements that all records were produced and evidence they believe shows records remain outstanding.

Liliana Armenta, who spoke as a planning commissioner and resident, described filing a harassment complaint last year and said the handling of that complaint by Mr. Schultz was "dismissive and lacked the impartiality required by his office," adding that the office's response left her feeling "unsafe and threatened." Doyle Morrison, a resident, also criticized councilroom decorum and suggested the council should give public speakers fuller attention when raising such concerns.

Speakers also raised the narrower procedural concern that, if outside counsel were retained to represent the mayor and a mayoral assistant, other council members who identify as "innocent" in the matter might need independent counsel to avoid conflicts. Michael Aguirre suggested that separate representation for noninvolved council members should be considered.

The council did not take public action on the allegations during the meeting. Instead, the mayor and city attorney announced one closed-session item: the performance evaluation of the city attorney. Mr. Schultz stated, "We do have 1 item for review in closed session and that is the performance evaluation of the city attorney," and the council recessed into closed session, saying it would report out at the end of the meeting. No decision or vote on the matters raised in public comment was recorded in the transcript provided.

The allegations summarized above are claims made by public commenters during the meeting; the transcript does not contain a public finding, independent verification of the claims, or any council vote resolving them. The council's closed-session discussion and any subsequent public report or action would be the formal record of any evaluation or decision.