Parlier council disputes special-counsel contract, moves into closed session on two potential litigation items

Presiding officer (unnamed in the transcript) opened a special meeting to question whether a contract and a resolution assigning special counsel duties had been properly completed for the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, prompting an extended public exchange and a decision to go into closed session on two potential litigation items.

The issue centered on whether a majority of the council had approved the firm's contract in open session and whether a signed agreement or a separately agendized resolution assigning particular matters to the firm existed. An attorney identifying their office as Liebert Cassidy Whitmore told the council that, "my understanding is that the contract between the city and my office . . . was passed by a majority of the council in open session," and that they had been invited to the meeting to discuss an anticipated litigation matter under the Brown Act.

Why it matters: The dispute bears on who may lawfully represent the city in potential lawsuits and how council authority is delegated. Council members repeatedly requested a signed copy of the contract and a resolution specifying any special assignment; one council member said no signed contract had been shown and asked the attorney to return with a resolution and explicit delegation so that "we can approve your assignment." The council also discussed whether one of the items on the agenda had been tabled from a prior meeting and whether agenda language was sufficiently clear.

Council members and staff debated procedural questions for much of the meeting: whether the mayor or city manager had authority to sign contracts absent an explicit delegation, whether the existing city attorney (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Costanzo/Costanza) had been terminated or remained authorized to represent the city, and whether an assignment could be discussed in closed session without an open-session resolution. The attorney from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore repeatedly declined to opine on the contract's legal validity and said they would defer to the city to resolve any dispute.

At several points the discussion grew heated. The presiding officer demanded that the attorney provide a signed contract and a resolution with the special assignment; other members argued the firm had been approved previously and should be allowed to remain for the closed-session item. The attorney told the council that the closed-session item was properly agendized as an anticipated litigation matter under subdivision (d)(2) of the cited section referenced in the meeting; counsel also said a statement of facts would be provided to support the closed session as required by the Brown Act.

After extended back-and-forth about postings, signatures and delegation of authority, the council agreed to enter closed session to address the two anticipated litigation items, one of which council members described as an assignment of a particular matter to the firm. When the meeting reconvened, the presiding officer announced, "Back from our closed session, and there's nothing to report," and the meeting was adjourned.

The council directed staff to either bring back clearer agenda language and a resolution specifying any assignment at a future meeting or to proceed with the currently agendized closed-session items as presented. The transcript records no formal vote tally on the decision to enter closed session nor any formal action adopting or rejecting the contract; follow-up items include producing a signed contract copy and, if needed, placing an assignment resolution on a future public agenda.