Councilman Won’t Seek Bill Payment

Councilman David Margrave has agreed not to pursue payment of a $1,386 bill for work his plumbing company did for the city, apparently ending an eight-month controversy over possible conflict of interest.

Margrave’s company, Morrow & Holman Plumbing Inc., had done all of the city’s plumbing maintenance for many years. That practice continued after Margrave joined the council in 1982 until March, when Councilman Lee Prentiss expressed concern about a possible conflict of interest. The council then withheld the payment and stopped doing business with the company.

Margrave said he decided not to press for payment after City Atty. Charles Vose told the City Council at its Nov. 6 meeting that the payment would be illegal.

Vose, City Manager John Bernardi, Councilman Robert Wagner and Prentiss have said they thought Margrave’s repeated votes to pay bills from his firm probably constituted a conflict of interest.

Margrave never hid his relationship with the company and insisted all along that he had no conflict. Margrave said he voted on the bills only after former City Atty. Charles Martin told him it was proper.

The matter appeared settled last month when the council authorized payment of the $1,386, but Vose objected when the bill came up for final approval Nov. 6.

Margrave said he gave up his claim because he wanted to take the heat off fellow council members and defuse the matter as a political issue.

“I think we had some members of the community that would challenge it (the payment) and may sue the other councilmen for their action,” Margrave said. “It may be a few hundred dollars but it may have dragged out. Rather than do that, I decided to just cut it short.”

Mayor Sam Knowles said he did not know what the council would have done had Margrave not decided to drop the matter, but added, “It seems they would have carefully considered the advice of the city attorney. I’ve stated that we hired an attorney and it would seem prudent to follow his advice.”

Prentiss said that he is satisfied with the outcome and that, despite the fact that Vose found there was a probable conflict, he believes Margrave acted in good faith.

“He received bad legal advice,” Prentiss said. “He never showed any malice and he always asked for opinions from (the) city attorney and he received an opinion. He thought he was acting legally.”

Prentiss added that the affair helped establish conflict-of-interest guidelines for the council. “It was clarified that he will not be doing business with the city again nor will any other city councilman,” Prentiss said.

Based on Court Decision

Wagner has pressed for an ordinance establishing conflict-of-interest standards for city officials, but the other council members have argued that Vose’s opinion, which is based in part on a recent state Supreme Court decision involving a Northern California conflict case, provides sufficient guidance.

The controversy began last March when Prentiss expressed concern. The council directed Martin’s successor, then-City Atty. Ronald J. Einboden, to study the matter, suspended business with Margrave’s firm and withheld payment of the $1,386 pending Einboden’s review.

Einboden came to a different conclusion than Martin and eventually reported that Margrave probably had a conflict under state Government Code Section 1090.

He also raised the possibility that, even though Margrave had no apparent criminal intent, Margrave might have to repay more than $14,500 in billings dating back to his election. Einboden resigned last summer, citing a threat from Margrave to sue him. Vose took over as city attorney and later came to the same conclusion regarding the conflict.

Bernardi said the city does not plan to seek repayment of money Margrave’s firm has been paid since he joined the council. He said he considers the conflict-of-interest matter closed.

“I think that’s over with--I think,” Bernardi said.