Residents and commissioners press council over city attorney's hiring of outside counsel; council recesses to closed session

Multiple residents and a planning commissioner urged the National City Council on Thursday to scrutinize the city attorney's recent use of outside counsel and his handling of public-records matters, and the council recessed into closed session to review the attorney's performance.

Michael Aguirre, introduced during the meeting as a public commenter, said the city attorney "hired an outside lawyer to work on the public records case" without council approval and that the arrangement appeared to benefit the mayor and the mayor's assistant while leaving other council members without separate legal representation. "If there was gonna be outside counsel hired, there should have been outside counsel hired for the innocent members of the council," Aguirre said.

Alicia Morrison told the council she was raising "ethical concerns" and asked whether it was proper for the city attorney to "engage his former law firm to work on a current case without proper authorization from the city council." Morrison also challenged an office claim that all records had been produced, saying "evidence suggests that this is not the case." She urged council members to weigh those concerns during the attorney's performance review.

Mica Blanco asked whether the city attorney had investigated alleged financial favors involving Josie Flores Clark and whether the attorney had reviewed relevant phones and emails to verify that records had been produced. "What proof do we have?" Blanco asked, pressing the council for transparency about the inquiry.

Several other speakers raised similar questions about the decision to hire outside counsel for what they described as routine public-records or Brown Act matters. Louise McCarthy said hiring an outside firm for a public-records dispute did not make sense: "It's like hiring a surgeon to take out a splinter," she said. Maria Severson cited Chapter 2.02 of the municipal code in questioning who has authority to retain and pay outside counsel and noted the firm reportedly retained had been the city attorney's former firm.

Planning commissioner Liliana Armenta spoke about a harassment complaint she filed last year and said the city attorney, Mr. Schultz, handled the complaint in a way she described as "dismissive" and lacking impartiality. Armenta said the attorney's handling of that matter left her feeling unsafe and questioned whether his continued role "aligns with the best interest of National City and its residents." She also said the city attorney had hired outside counsel to manage a State Bar complaint against himself.

The council chair announced one closed-session item: the performance evaluation of the city attorney. A council representative acknowledged the item and the council recessed for the closed session, saying it would reconvene and report any outcomes later in the meeting.

The public comments focused primarily on three themes: whether the city attorney had the authority or provided sufficient oversight when retaining outside counsel; whether records had in fact been fully produced by the city attorney's office; and whether the city attorney's handling of personnel or ethics-related complaints had been impartial. No formal vote or disciplinary action was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; the council moved to a closed executive session to consider the attorney's performance and said it would report back publicly afterward.

Next steps: the council said it would reconvene and report out after the closed session. The public-comment period and the closed-session announcement were the only actions taken on the record during this portion of the meeting.