Adviser to County : Resignation Accepted Over Jail Issue Conflict

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to accept the resignation of attorney John C. Funk, a specialist in environmental law who has advised county officials on the location of a new jail, because he also represents the Irvine Co.

The site on which the county plans to build a new 6,720-bed jail in Gypsum Canyon is owned by the Irvine Co.

Funk, a county legal consultant for nearly 3 years, said he first notified the county a year ago that he had been retained by the Irvine Co. Initially, County Counsel Adrian Kuyper ruled that there was no conflict and that Funk could continue working for the county. But late last year, as the county began preparing an environmental impact report on the proposed Gypsum Canyon jail site, the county counsel’s office again reviewed Funk’s role as an adviser on the jail issue and recently ruled that he should step down.

Funk, who has been paid about $85,000 over the past 3 years to prepare environmental documents, agreed last week to withdraw from his county job. He is an attorney with Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.

The issue drew concern from Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, who said the county should consider placing limits on outside work done by county attorneys. Vasquez said he was concerned at the “frequency of requests” from county-contracted attorneys who request permission to work for clients that could create a conflict interest.

In another case, the supervisors agreed Tuesday to allow a law firm it uses on land matters to represent the Building Industry Assn. The firm, Siemon, Larsen & Marsh, has assisted the county in negotiating 20 development agreements with builders in south county.

The firm sought the waiver to represent the BIA in discussions with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is drawing up a plan to reduce smog.

The BIA generally represents the interests of builders.

After reviewing the request, Kuyper recommended that the board grant the firm’s waiver, ruling that there was no potential conflict of interest because as clients of the BIA they would not be working with individual developers.

Vasquez voted for the waiver but proposed that the board review its policy of granting such requests.

In this case, he said, “I’m satisfied that a legal conflict does not exist.” But he said there is a “need to perhaps review our policy.”