Los Alamitos City Councilman Warren Kusumoto requested a special meeting to set an investigation in motion to determine the exact nature of the disputed trash contract for the city.
Kusumoto’s request never got out of the blocks at Monday’s special meeting, as three members of the council were not present. Mayor Troy Edgar, Mayor Pro Tem Marilynn Poe and Council Member Ken Stephens were not in attendance, citing a conflict of interest in the matter, because they were the deciding votes in awarding the contract.
But Kusumoto and Council Member Gerri Graham-Mejia have asked that the matter be agendized for a regular council meeting, so the council can examine conditions that led to the contract, lawsuit and eventual court ruling that the city had violated its own ordinance when it awarded the contract to Consolidated Disposal Service.
The fact that three council members chose to, or were not able to attend, did not sit well with Graham-Mejia, nor did the fact that only two members of the city staff were present for the meeting. She said she believes that there is a clear effort to keep the issue from being investigated.
“I think it’s very cowardly and it shows a lack of respect for the people of this community,” Graham-Mejia said.
Mayor Troy Edgar was expected to release a statement on the issue. However, it had not been received as of Tuesday afternoon at the Sun’s press deadline. A phone message on Monday to Edgar had also not been returned as of press time.
Kusumoto asked that the matter be examined to give the city a clear and formal conclusion on the process of awarding the contract, or to determine that no further action is necessary because there is no merit in the agenda item. He offered two proposals.
- Hire a lawyer and/or law firm to examine the facts and evidence and the Los Alamitos Municipal Code and prepare and submit a report to the council that either recommends prosecution or a finding that the Municipal Code was not violated.
- Determine if the city should seek reimbursement from the city’s consultant SloanVasquez for their failure to understand the LAMC and provide competent service and guidance with crafting the city’s request for quote and subsequent evaluation and selection of the franchisee.
Kusumoto also said that any decision of no further action should be reached by the council, with guidance from the city attorney. According to a staff report, the City Attorney Sandra Levin had investigated the issue and determined that no criminal action had taken place. But because three members of the council approved the initial contract, the contention is that they would be potential subjects in the investigation and therefore need to recuse themselves.
However, with just two members present on Monday, there were not enough members for a quorum, so a meeting could not even be started. Kusumoto referenced a Fair Political Practices Commission ruling that allows a third member to be involved if it is necessary to have the issue heard. So one of the three absent council members could be chosen to sit in on the discussion.
However, there are reports that say that is not the case and that the FPPC ruling only addresses the Political Reform Act and cases where a city needs to perform a necessary city function and there is no other decision making body available.
“That doesn’t apply in this case because the FPPC relates to conflicts only under the political reform act and so the issue here has nothing to do with the political reform act,” Avery said.
Even so, former city Council Member Art DeBolt, one of the plantiffs in the lawsuit that forced the change in the municipal code regarding the trash contract, said they should have shown up to declare their conflict.
“I’m surprised that they don’t show up and declare their conflict, it’s all about procedure,” Art DeBolt said. “The fact that you’re conflicted is not sufficient to avoid the meeting, you have to declare your conflict in the open session and then excuse yourself from the discussion.”
Kusumoto and Graham-Mejia asked that the issue be put on the agenda for the next regular council meeting on Aug. 20, but Graham-Mejia said she expects the issue to be kept of the agenda through bueractic resistance.
“My prediction is that they won’t agendize it at all because they don’t want it to come before the community,” Graham-Mejia said “[Kusumoto and I] will address it in our council comments and I hope that residents who understand what is happening will stand up and have a voice, because it’s not something Warren and I can do on our own,” Graham-Mejia said.