Council Members Get City Aid in Slander Suit : Government: A state commission clears the way for Nell Soto and Tomas Ursua to vote on whether the city can help defray their legal costs.

An opinion by the state Fair Political Practices Commission has opened the way for the city of Pomona to pay the legal expenses of council members Nell Soto and Tomas Ursua, who are being sued for slander, invasion of privacy and civil rights violations.

The City Council voted 5 to 2 to pay the attorney fees after an FPPC opinion allowed Soto and Ursua to vote on the issue. They had abstained from a vote in June, leaving the council without the majority needed to approve the payments.

City Atty. Arnold Glasman had advised the council that it was a conflict of interest for Soto and Ursua to vote on whether to pay their lawyers.

But the two council members asked Glasman to submit the issue to the state commission that gives advice on conflict of interest questions.

The FPPC legal staff said that, because council members can set their own salaries and other benefits, they also can vote on payment of attorney fees.

Soto, Ursua, private investigator Howard Emirhanian, former mayoral candidate Abe Tapia and the city are being sued by landscape contractor D. Rodney Tapp and his company, Land Design; former community development director Sanford Sorensen, and Pomona residents Dan and Joan McIntire. The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of damaging their reputations by spreading false information involving allegations of political corruption.

Councilwoman Paula Lantz said that, despite the FPPC opinion, she thinks it is a clear conflict of interest for a council member to vote to pay his own legal bills, but that the payments should be approved anyway.

Lantz said Ursua is being sued for responding to questions from reporters about a corruption investigation. Answering questions from the news media is in line with the duties of a council member, she said.

Soto originally was sued for remarks she made at a candidate’s forum while campaigning for reelection. But the suit was amended last month to cite Soto’s statements at a council meeting. The amended suit states that Soto and Ursua are being sued both in their personal and official capacities.

Lantz said the city is obligated to defend a council member whenever there is a suit involving statements made in connection with duties.

“As a council person,” Lantz said, “I have a right to be protected and have the city defend me if someone out there does not like what I say.”

Councilman Boyd Bredenkamp disagreed, saying fellow council members should be protected against “spurious and frivolous lawsuits.” But, he added, council members also must realize that “they can be held responsible for what they say.”

Mayor Donna Smith said that “being an elected official does not give us an open license to slander people.” By picking up the legal tab for Soto and Ursua, she said, the council is setting a precedent that seems boundless.

Smith noted that when she was sued in 1987 for allegedly threatening a youth with a shotgun, she had to pay her own legal expenses.

Smith, who settled the case for an undisclosed amount, was sued by an 18-year-old college student who accused her of pointing a weapon at him after he parked his car in front of her home. Smith said she thought the youth might be connected with a gang that had threatened her.

The city is paying attorney fees for former Councilman C. L. (Clay) Bryant, who is being sued in federal court by two Pomona police officers for statements he made about them at a council meeting before he was recalled from office by voters last year.

Both the Bryant case and the suit against Soto and Ursua involve the alleged release of confidential information.

Bryant is being sued for disclosing that two police officers had been accused of sexual harassment and one had sought psychiatric treatment. The information reportedly came from confidential worker’s compensation reports.

The suit against Soto and Ursua involves the unauthorized release of reports prepared by a private investigator and a city Fire Department investigator, who were assigned to look into allegations of corruption in city government. The suit alleges that the reports contained false allegations and were made available to the public for political reasons.