Council convenes closed session on city‑attorney appointment; resident asks whether role will be employee or contractor

The Pacific Grove City Council adjourned its Nov. 5 study session and convened a special closed session at 5:30 p.m. to consider a public‑employee appointment: the city attorney (citing California Government Code section 54957).

Before the closed session began, resident Jane Haynes — speaking as a Pacific Grove resident and not in an attorney capacity — asked the council to state on the record whether the new city attorney would be hired as a public employee or as an independent contractor who would function as an officer of the local agency. Haynes referenced the Brown Act and the Government Code definition of “employee,” noting that the code’s subsection can include an independent contractor performing an officer‑like function.

Her public comment included this request: “I respectfully request that whoever speaks out state on the record whether the new city attorney is being hired as a public employee or as an independent contractor functioning as a city officer.”

The council approved the closed‑session agenda by voice vote (motion by Emilio; second by Raul; passed unanimously) and then adjourned to closed session. The public‑session minutes note that councilmembers said they would report out at the beginning of the following public meeting. No public record of a decision or appointment was made during the open portion of the Nov. 5 meeting.

Why this matters: whether a city attorney is employed directly or retained as a contracted outside counsel affects disclosure rules, labor and benefits treatment, and the administrative relationship between the attorney and the city. Jane Haynes requested clarity under the Brown Act framework so members of the public would know which employment category applies to the appointment.