HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04162013 - C.52RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel, or her designee, to execute on behalf of the County a conflict
waiver acknowledging a potential conflict of interest and consenting to Meyers Nave representing the City of
Pittsburg, and the Successor Agency to the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency, in connection with Pittsburg
Unified School District’s litigation against the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller related to implementation of
AB 1484.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
The County is an existing client of Meyers Nave. Meyers Nave represents the County in various labor and
employment matters. The City of Pittsburg (the City) is also an existing client of Meyers Nave. Meyers Nave serves
the City as the City Attorney and as legal counsel to the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Pittsburg (the Successor Agency).
Meyers Nave has been asked to advise the City and the Successor Agency regarding Pittsburg Unified School
District’s (the School
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/16/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Kathleen Andrus, (925)
335-1800
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 16, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy
cc: Kathleen Andrus, Deputy County Counsel, David Twa, County Administrator
C.52
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel
Date:April 16, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE CONFLICT WAIVER WITH MEYERS NAVE
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
District) application for a temporary restraining order and related litigation against the Contra Costa County
Auditor-Controller. The dispute centers around the interpretation of recently enacted State law (AB x1 26 and AB
1484), which eliminated redevelopment agencies and changed the way in which each county’s Auditor-Controller
distributes certain tax revenues. (The payment of those tax revenues to the School District is referred to as a
“Pass-through.”)
The Auditor-Controller made an initial determination based on State law to convey the entirety of the School
District’s January 2013 Pass-through to the School District. Upon receipt of further information and documents,
including various indentures (related to public bonds), and agreements between the Successor Agency and
“affected taxing entities,” the Auditor- Controller advised the School District that the January 2013 Pass-through
should not have been made to the School District, and that the Pass-through should be returned to the
Auditor-Controller for payment to the Successor Agency. The School District disagrees with the
Auditor-Controller’s interpretation of the applicable laws and agreements and has filed suit against the
Auditor-Controller, the City, and the Successor Agency. While the Auditor-Controller, the City and the Successor
Agency are in agreement with regard to the handling of the January 2013 Pass-through, the interests of the City
and the Successor Agency are potentially adverse to those of the Auditor-Controller in this matter.
In the absence of the informed written consent of each client, the California Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit an attorney from representing a client in one matter and at the same time representing a second client in a
separate matter if the second client’s interests in the separate matter are adverse to those of the first client (Rule
3-310(C)(3)).
In this instance, the representation Meyers Nave provides to the County is unrelated to the representation it
provides to the City and the Successor Agency.
Attached is a letter from Meyers Nave that describes the conflict waiver request in more detail.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the conflict waiver is not granted, Meyers Nave will continue to represent the County in connection with
unrelated labor and employment matters and will continue to act as the City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg and
as legal counsel to the Successor Agency, but will be unable to advise the City or the Successor Agency with
respect to the School District’s application for a temporary restraining order or any related litigation against the
Auditor-Controller.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not Applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Conflict Waiver with Meyers Nave.pdf