SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGO — Things got heated at San Diego City Hall Wednesday when city leaders postponed discussion of a controversial proposal to chop the city attorney job between two people.
Council President Sean Elo-Rivera said he’s concerned City Attorney Mara Elliott is giving city leaders biased advice about the proposal. Elliott strongly denied that accusation and said she won’t let Elo-Rivera silence her on the issue.
Elo-Rivera’s concerns about Elliott’s advice prompted the Council’s Rules Committee to vote 4-1 Wednesday to postpone indefinitely any further discussion of the proposal, which ers hope to place on the November 2024 ballot.
He said Elliott had “demonstrated an expressed political and policy opposition to the proposal” that made him question whether the legal analysis she provided recently was objective.
Elo-Rivera also criticized Elliott for muddying discussion of the proposal by including with her analysis suggestions for several unrelated government changes, including to the city’s Ethics Commission.
Elliott strongly denied Elo-Rivera’s claims and suggested his goal was to eliminate her from the debate about the proposed ballot measure.
“To say that our office has taken a position is inaccurate and misleading,” Elliott said. “I am getting the impression at this point that it is your intention to push me out of the conversation. I will not be silenced, and I have a lot to say.”
Elliott would not be personally affected by any possible changes to the duties of the city attorney because she out of office next fall.
The proposal would divide the job between two people — one person for criminal cases and another for civil matters.
The civil job, which would include handling litigation and advising city officials on legal matters, would no longer be an elected position. Instead, the council would hire a lawyer to handle those duties.
The criminal side of the job, which includes prosecuting misdemeanors like drunk driving and domestic violence, would be handled by someone who would continue to be elected by city voters every four years.
The person handling the criminal side would continue to be called city attorney. The person handling the civil side would be called municipal counsel.
Opponents of such a change say it’s crucial to have the lawyer handling civil matters be answerable only to the voters, not to the council who appointed that person and could fire them at any time.
ers say elected city attorneys’ political ambitions or ideology can taint the legal advice they give to the mayor and council.
They also say elected officials face more scrutiny than appointed ones, and that can adversely affect the advice that an elected city attorney gives the City Council and mayor.
Elliott’s legal analysis of the proposal, which is divided into two parts which total 39 pages, criticizes it for “eliminating an independent branch of government” and accuses ers of making several errors and false statements.
Elo-Rivera said Wednesday that Elliott’s analysis shows she is biased against the proposal and that his colleagues need to think about that.
“I would like some more time for myself and the council to consider how to navigate a reality in which we as the body publicly charged with policymaking are seeking objective legal analysis for a policy proposal from an office that, in my reading of the materials, has now demonstrated an expressed political and policy opposition to the proposal,” he said.
Elliott said Elo-Rivera was conflating her 26-page legal analysis of the proposal with a separate 13-page memo where she suggested several changes to city government that she said could help make up for the loss of an elected attorney if voters approve the ballot measure.
“The report walks through the proposal step-by-step — it’s completely neutral,” she said.
Elliott said the government changes — and the criticisms of the proposed ballot measure included with them — are not actually part of the legal analysis. She said she plans to introduce her reform recommendations as separate policy proposals over the next 14 months before she leaves office.
Elo-Rivera said he was concerned the proposals would confuse Wednesday’s debate.
“The city attorney has given the committee and the public a lot to chew on, and it is completely valid to discuss and consider each of those ideas,” he said. “However, I do have real concerns that attempting to untangle the many unrelated proposals included in the memo from the legal analysis we requested will lead to an unfocused discussion. Rather than risk that, I’d like to hit pause.”
Elliott’s reform proposals include adding a whistleblower hotline, making city auditor an elected position, strengthening rules on lobbyist disclosures and having Ethics Commission appointed by retired judges instead of the mayor.
Councilmember Vivian Moreno cast the lone vote against postponing Wednesday’s discussion. ing Elo-Rivera in were Council Monica Montgomery Steppe, Joe LaCava and Kent Lee.
