Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves waiver allowing law firm to represent LAFCO in anticipated La Jolla incorporation dispute
Summary
The San Diego City Council approved a conflict-of-interest waiver permitting a law firm that already represents the city to also represent LAFCO in an anticipated lawsuit over La Jolla’s push for incorporation; the decision drew public concern about possible conflicts and prompted an initially confusing roll call on the tally.
San Diego City Council voted to approve a request for a conflict-of-interest waiver that will allow the law firm identified in the agenda as "Collin Tuna, Highsmith and Watley, PC" to represent LAFCO in a matter tied to La Jolla’s incorporation proceedings while continuing to represent the city in two ongoing lawsuits.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Ben Seats told the council the firm asked for the waiver so it could represent LAFCO in the city’s anticipated lawsuit related to the La Jolla incorporation process. "The law firm currently represents the city of San Diego in 2 ongoing lawsuits," Seats said. "And they're requesting the waiver to allow them to continue to represent the city and to also represent LAFCO in the city's anticipated lawsuit against LAFCO related to the La Jolla incorporation proceedings." Seats said the conflict waiver "does not pose a risk of any detrimental" effect to the city’s representation in the existing matters.
During public comment, callers expressed concern about granting the waiver. Julie Zenyatta of District 3 said she felt uneasy and warned of the risk in giving the firm authority to represent both sides: "I just don't feel good about this item ... I would go on the no side," she said. Another speaker in chambers, Audra, repeatedly urged caution and connected the item to broader criticisms of city contracting and homelessness services.
Council members asked follow-up questions about whether the firm’s representation of LAFCO could impair the city’s legal interests. Seats replied that he did not foresee detriment, saying, "There'd be no... detriment if we granted the waiver. Our representation in either matter would not be impacted by the representation of the anticipated new matter."
The council moved to adopt staff’s recommendation and the deputy clerk called the roll. The clerk initially announced the item "passes with 5 votes and 4 council members absent." Members then raised questions about the record: the meeting included recusals and absences and council members asked the clerk to clarify the distinction between a recusal and an absence. The clerk later provided corrections and, in subsequent comments on the record, multiple references to "6 yeses" appear as the tally was clarified. The final, corrected record should be checked in the city clerk’s official minutes.
Next steps: according to the agenda and staff presentation, the law firm's conflict waiver will allow it to proceed in the anticipated representation for LAFCO while maintaining its existing city engagements; any future related litigation would proceed under the terms described in the staff report and with the city attorney’s ongoing oversight.
Votes and procedural note: the transcript records initial confusion in the roll call and the clerk issued clarifications on whether members were recused or absent. The council’s motion to grant the waiver was recorded as passing in the meeting minutes; staff indicated the waiver was approved as recommended.
