Judge removes claim that Huntington Beach “illegally” hired private attorney from rebuttal to Measure N

A judge ruled Friday that language in an argument against a measure on the ballot in the Nov. 8 election claiming Huntington Beach officials “illegally” hired a private lawyer to audit the city attorney’s office was false and must be removed from information distributed to voters.

Measure N is a proposal to add language to current statutes that would define Huntington Beach’s elected city attorney as an employee of the city. It would also explicitly authorize the City Council to hire an independent attorney to handle matters that might pose a conflict of interest.

That’s standard practice in practically every other city in Southern California, whether the head of their legal departments are elected or appointed, Councilman Dan Kalmick, a supporter of Measure N, said during a brief interview Friday.

“The item itself is a restatement of existing law,” Kalmick said.

However, opponents of the measure call it a power grab by the council that would infringe on the independence of the city attorney’s office. One of them, Councilman Erik Peterson, said it “changes the relationship” between the city and what he and others view as an independent body tasked with holding officials accountable.

Peterson was assigned to write a rebuttal to arguments for Measure N that will be included in information distributed to voters ahead of the November election. His statement referenced an audit commissioned by Huntington Beach officials regarding the city attorney office’s handling of a 2019 age discrimination suit that the city settled for $2.5 million and that cost taxpayers about $1.5 million to litigate.

In the draft he initially submitted, Peterson wrote that the council had violated the city charter by “secretly and illegally” paying private attorney Craig Steele $50,000 to audit the city attorney’s office.

In July, Kalmick and Councilwoman Rhonda Bolton asked Huntington Beach City Clerk Robin Estanislau to remove that language from Peterson’s rebuttal, but their request was denied. That prompted John Briscoe, a trustee on the Ocean View School District Board of Education, to file a lawsuit seeking to alter the statement.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Nathan Scott found that city officials did not violate any laws by hiring Steele. He ruled Peterson’s claims to the contrary false and ordered that those be stricken from materials sent to voters.

Kalmick hailed Scott’s ruling as a victory for supporters of Measure N, which he characterized as an important step toward accountability in government.

“If I have to go to the city attorney’s office to look into a possible issue at the city attorney’s office, well that’s basically asking the party in question to investigate themselves,” Kalmick said.

However, Peterson noted that city officials already have the option to hire private lawyers from a list kept on file by the city attorney’s office. He said Measure N would allow the council to subvert that process.

“They want to go direct, making things less transparent,” Peterson said.

Despite the court-ordered changes to Peterson’s written argument, he said he is still confident it will convey the importance of the concerns he raised to voters.

“The message is still there,” Peterson said.

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.