Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge review of Pacific Grove city attorney; council approves closed-session evaluation
Summary
At a July 16 special meeting, the Pacific Grove City Council unanimously approved a closed-session agenda item to evaluate City Attorney Brian Purick after two residents urged routine evaluations and consideration of returning to an in‑house counsel model.
The Pacific Grove City Council voted unanimously at a special meeting on July 16 to approve a closed-session agenda item to evaluate City Attorney Brian Purick after two residents urged the council to adopt scheduled reviews and consider returning to an in‑house attorney model.
The matter was listed as agenda item A: public employment under Government Code section 54957. Councilmember Emilio moved to approve the closed-session agenda and Councilmember Peduri seconded; the motion passed unanimously, and the council adjourned to closed session to address the evaluation.
Two members of the public spoke during the comment period. "I support Luke Colletti's recommendations," said Miss Haines, a Pacific Grove resident. She summarized Colletti's suggestions as twofold: that "the council adopt a policy for regularly scheduled evaluations of the city attorney's performance" and that Pacific Grove "consider returning to an in‑house attorney model as it had in the 1980s and 1990s under George Thatcher, when I served on the planning commission." Haines said she finds City Attorney Brian Purick "articulate, alert, and knowledgeable," but urged the council to review whether the current arrangement best serves the city and to scrutinize legal spending.
Haines asked whether it is necessary for an attorney from the law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen to attend housing element discussions, questioned the cost to the city of a recent 15‑page letter defending a council member named Ralph, and asked how Pacific Grove's annual legal expenditures compare with Monterey's costs for an in‑house attorney. She did not provide dollar amounts; the cost questions were raised for council review.
A second commenter, Inga Lawrence, told the council she finds Purick "disengaged and inattentive in city council meetings" and said he appears to lack Pacific Grove‑specific knowledge. "I suppose this pertains to the different city codes for the cities he represents," Lawrence said, and echoed the suggestion that Pacific Grove might be better served by an in‑house city attorney.
After public comment, the council closed the public comment period and recessed into closed session to handle the listed public‑employment evaluation. The council indicated it would return to open session when the item was complete.
The discussion before the closed session focused on whether the city should formalize periodic performance reviews of its legal counsel and whether contracting with external firms for specialized matters remains the most cost‑effective approach. No formal decisions about changing the city’s legal service model were recorded in open session; the only formal action taken in open session was approval of the closed‑session agenda and recess into closed session to conduct the evaluation under Government Code section 54957.
