Judge moves cautiously in appointing monitor for Bell

The top administrators were forced out, city leaders and council members were arrested and jailed, the city’s finances were so suspect that state and local agencies tried to determine whether the city is still solvent.

Now, a Superior Court judge is weighing whether the city of Bell is in such battered shape and so beyond immediate redemption that an outsider should be brought in to help the city limp forward.

Bell would become one of the first cities in California to have its fate placed in the hands of a court-appointed monitor.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien has so far been cautious, slow to move forward in deciding whether to appoint someone to take over a city that has operated on its own since 1927. He has, however, asked the city and the state attorney general to submit the names of three people qualified to be named monitor.

“I don’t want to lead anyone to believe we will appoint a monitor,” he said at a recent hearing, “but I want to be prepared if we’re going to do it.”

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who sued the city and eight current and former leaders for misuse of public funds, requested that an independent monitor be brought in to watch over the city’s finances, investigate potential wrongdoing and, essentially, help the city operate.

City officials have reluctantly agreed, but only if the judge sets restrictions on the monitor’s powers, such as limiting access to private meetings and documents.

Since the arrests of four of the city’s five council members and many of its longtime administrators, the city has been battered by scandal and financial setbacks. Its current council has seemed paralyzed at times, unable to muster a quorum for one meeting and failing to meet last week to review a list of proposed monitors.

O’Brien has told the city to turn in its list by Friday.

If the judge appoints a monitor, it will be an unprecedented move, said Dave Mora, West Coast regional director of the International City/County Management Assn.

Mora said that in 2008 the city of Vallejo sought bankruptcy protection and a judge was brought in to handle its finances. In that instance, however, the council, and not an outside party, continued to make day-to-day decisions.

“You would hope no jurisdiction gets to that point,” Mora said. “A principle of local government is that the local policymakers are elected by the residents, speak for the residents, vouch for the interests of the residents and are best qualified to serve the residents — that’s the normal case. Bell is obviously not the normal case.”

Brown’s office requested a court-appointed monitor after receiving complaints from Bell residents and officials, including Lorenzo Velez, the only council member not facing felony charges, and acting Police Chief Anthony Miranda.

“Governmental transparency does not yet exist in Bell,” said Rebecca MacLaren, a Brown spokeswoman. “A monitor would permit the city government to rebuild with full transparency and accountability.”

The attorney general has proposed that in addition to overseeing operations and examining the city’s finances, the monitor conduct investigations related to the civil and criminal actions, as well as allegations of fraud, misconduct or mismanagement of the city.

The monitor would hold a monthly public forum and report back to the attorney general until a month after the March elections, when voters will be asked whether to recall council members and elect replacements.

Bell’s attorneys have taken issue with the proposed monitor’s unfettered access to attorney-client privileged communications, closed-door meetings and personnel files.

“I’m all for transparency, but what they’re demanding is beyond that,” Bell interim City Atty. Jamie Casso said. “I don’t really believe the attorney general’s office has explained the rationale for seeking a monitor, but that’s up to a judge, and if he decides to appoint a monitor, we’re going to welcome it.”

The city also asked that the state pay for the monitor, a cost that is limited to $85,000.

Many residents believe an outside monitor will provide necessary supervision over a council that has lost the confidence of its people.

“They have been so awful to us, we can’t trust them anymore,” Carmen Bella, 76, said. “These people don’t even want to admit they made a mistake — they’re not resigning. We need somebody to check on them and what they are doing. They’ve just done whatever they want to for a long time.”

corina.knoll@latimes.com

ruben.vives@latimes.com