Parlier council narrows outside‑counsel authorization after heated debate; votes 4–1 to end attorney services

PARLIER, Calif. — The Parlier City Council spent a special July 10 meeting arguing over language that would give outside counsel authority to perform city‑attorney functions, then amended the measure to limit the firm’s role and later reported a 4–1 closed‑session vote to terminate city attorney services with Costanzo and Associates.

The council opened by placing Resolution No. 2024‑32 on the agenda, a staff‑recommended measure that would expressly authorize legal services under a framework agreement for outside counsel. Public commenters and several council members sharply questioned the timing and wording of the draft, citing an ongoing trial and a reported $4,000,000 exposure to the city.

An attorney advising the council told members the resolution’s phrasing was vague and risked creating an illegal delegation of the council’s authority to contract and appropriate money. “If you adopt that resolution as is, you will be turning the existing contract into an illegal contract,” the attorney said, arguing that prior actions taken on June 10 and June 13 could not simply be ratified and that any cure required rescinding and redoing the prior action.

Council members and members of the public pushed to clarify the assignment. Several speakers said the council had approved only a limited request for consulting and guidance; they asked that the resolution be amended to remove a clause that would have authorized “representation” and broad “legal services pertaining to the provision of city attorney services.” A motion to strike the third whereas and to revise paragraph 1 so the agreement would include “consulting and guidance related to the city’s agreements with Neil Costanzo and Costanzo and Associates and city business” was made, seconded and declared carried after roll call.

During the public comment period several residents questioned why the council was acting before the conclusion of related litigation and asked how much money the council intended to delegate to outside counsel when the city had not adopted a budget for the new fiscal year. One resident asked, “Why can’t we wait until it’s over?” and another urged the council to focus on community services rather than internal disputes.

After the public portion the council recessed to closed session. Upon return, city staff reported a single reportable action under the applicable Government Code provision: the council voted 4–1 to terminate city attorney services with Costanzo and Associates and gave "other direction" to staff. The clerk read the roll: Mayor Beltran recorded a No vote; Council members Juanita Molina, Mayor Pro Tem Sabrina Rodriguez, Diego Garza and Kathy Solorio recorded Yes votes.

Council members and the attorney repeatedly raised concerns that the city manager had issued an agenda and draft language without routing the material through the city attorney’s office, a step they said the municipal code and cited Government Code provisions require. The attorney referenced council ordinances adopted in 1979 and appellate decisions as the basis for the argument that unauthorized delegations of contracting authority are void.

The amended resolution, as adopted, narrows the outside counsel engagement to consulting and guidance related to existing agreements with Costanzo and Associates rather than broad representation or an open delegation of city‑attorney duties. Council members said the corrected language was intended to conform with the assignment approved in closed session and to avoid creating an impermissible delegation of the council’s powers.

The council adjourned after reporting the closed‑session action. Members noted remaining legal exposure: "Now we need to worry about our $4,000,000 lawsuit," an official said following the vote.