Ex-Council Member May Seek His Old Seat : Moorpark: Scott Montgomery, who resigned amid charges of conflict of interest, is considering running again, his lawyer says.

Only two months after resigning from office and pleading guilty to felony and misdemeanor charges of conflict of interest, former Moorpark City Councilman Scott Montgomery may be interested in running for reelection in an upcoming special election, Montgomery’s lawyer said Thursday.

The courtroom disclosure was made as attorney George Eskin unsuccessfully tried to persuade Municipal Court Judge Thomas Hutchins to decide by Dec. 29 whether Montgomery can change his guilty pleas to not guilty. Dec. 29 is the filing deadline for the special election.

But a ruling by Hutchins that he will not decide that issue until Jan. 5, a week after the filing deadline, prompted Moorpark City Clerk Lillian Hare to speculate that Montgomery will not be able to legally run for his old council seat. And other Moorpark city officials questioned whether he should even be considering such a move.

“It’s an interesting development,” Hare said. “But . . . you cannot hold office if you are convicted of a felony. That’s why he resigned from office in the first place.”

Councilman Bernardo Perez questioned why Montgomery would think of running at this time after initially saying he was leaving office to spare Moorpark a long-running controversy.

“Wow, he’s considering running?” asked Perez. “One reason he gave for the sudden resignation was to spare the community and his family a painful and protracted legal proceeding. So for that I’m surprised at this possibility.

“There’s enough cynicism out there already,” Perez added. “When you have a candidate potentially like Scott--regardless of his past productive performance, regardless of positive public support--it seems to me with what he has gone through and is still going through that would be a substantial hurdle to overcome.”

Mayor Paul Lawrason also said he was surprised by the news and skeptical that Montgomery could be successful until his case is cleared up.

Montgomery resigned from office in October after pleading guilty to felony and misdemeanor charges of a conflict of interest for accepting a $3,500 loan from a high-ranking trash company official.

He has since changed his mind and has filed a motion to withdraw the plea, contending that the payment was for the sale of a computer.

The motion was scheduled to be heard Thursday by Hutchins, but Deputy Dist. Atty. Mark Aveis asked for the matter to be continued until January.

Eskin then tried to prevent the judge from putting off the matter so that it could be resolved by the Dec. 29 filing deadline.

“So he can reconsider his political options,” Eskin told the court. “The deadline for filing papers is Dec. 29.”

But Hutchins decided to set the hearing for Jan. 5.

If Montgomery’s motion to withdraw his plea is granted, prosecutors have already said they would try to get an indictment against the former councilman and take the case to trial.

If the plea is upheld, Montgomery could be sentenced soon after the hearing, facing a possible 3 1/2 years in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Montgomery said he had no comment on whether he would run, but Dan Schmidt, another attorney who has represented him, also said Montgomery is interested in a possible reelection bid.

After he originally entered his plea, Montgomery said he decided to accept the felony and misdemeanor charges to spare his family and the city a long and painful trial. But Schmidt said that an outpouring of support from local residents convinced Montgomery he can fight the charges.

Schmidt said Montgomery’s former colleagues on the Moorpark City Council would “welcome him back with open arms,” and indeed one member expressed support for the chastened councilman.

“I’m not sure that the case is very strong against him,” Councilman John Wozniak said. “If in fact the plea is withdrawn, and the charges dropped or whatnot, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to run.”

Wozniak said he joined more than 60 other Moorpark residents in writing letters to the court in support of Montgomery.

Montgomery’s attorneys are also doing everything they can to bolster his case, including getting Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell to halt the release of the grand jury transcript of the case until Monday, when the judge will consider possibly sealing the transcripts altogether.

The court order to halt the release of the documents comes after reporters have obtained copies of the 359-page document. Newspaper accounts have already detailed how Montgomery modified his testimony during the proceeding and how other witnesses contradicted his version of events.

“It’s sort of closing the barn door after the horses have left, but maybe we can limit the damage,” said attorney Eskin. “What’s the damage? You might ask. Well, consider this hypothetical: Suppose that none of the testimony is admissible.

“Suppose that it should not be submitted in evidence because Montgomery was not advised of his rights . . . and, in the meantime, suppose the prospective jury pool that would sit at his trial is being entertained by that information. I would think that could potentially interfere with his right to a fair trial.”