CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ELSINORE MAGAZINE 2

November 4, 2005

Second of City's Response to GRAND JURY'S Findings

Finding # 2 Grand Jury Report

2) The Grand Jury referred to the California State Attorney General's opinion 02-711, dated October 23, 2002, to clarify purchases of third party meals by a City Administrator. The attorney representing the City of Lake Elsinore disagreed with the Attorney General's opinion and stated this law applied only

to the City Council members.

CITY'S RESPONSE: We direct the Grand jury to the opinion 02- 711 which did not involve an employee(i.e.., an " administrator") as suggested in the finding but rather involved elected officials. (See AG Opinion 02 -711- Exhibit "C" .) Accordingly, the City Attorney did not "disagree" with the Attorney General Opinion 02- 711; but rather she noted that the opinion was based on reimbursement for meal expenditures by elected officials. (See City Attorney Memorandum dated October 12, 2004- Exhibit "D") While the Attorney General's office had clear opportunity to specify that the opinion extended to non-elected employees (and to overule a conflicting prior opinion on the same subject) it choose not to. As a result, some commentators have indicated that the opinion may be limited to elected officials. Most commentators agree that the opinion is ambigious in many respects. (Em2 suggest to review Exhibits and memorandums noted bythe City go to City hall clerks office for review.

EM2's RESPONSE: While the State Attorney General's Opinion was the topic of elected officials in General Law and Charter Cities, reimbursements for General Law City Council members on purchasing meals for third parties is BREAKING THE LAW! The City Attorney missed a very important component in the State Attorney General's Opinion and The State Constitution. Turning first to page 3 (three) of the State Attorney Generals opinion, Paragraph 2, line 3 "This restriction avoids any possible application of the prohibition contained in article XVI, section 6, of the Constitution which states:" "The legislature shall have no power. . . to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever.. . . " (See Albright v. City of South San Francisco (1975) 44 Cal. App.3d 866, 869-870; 61 Ops Cal. Atty. Gen.342, 344 (1978).)"

In view of the fact that legislatures include local agencies (i.e.) City Council Members the purchasing of THIRD PARTY MEALS WOULD BE A GIFT. The State Constitution appears to answer all applications of prohibition contained in Article XVI, section 6, "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL HAVE NO POWER." "No MAKING of GIFTS, or AUTHORIZE the MAKING of GIFTS of ANY PUBLIC MONEY or THING of VALUE to any INDIVIDUAL, MUNICIPAL or OTHER CORPORATION WHATEVER!!! This puts to rest the question of legality!! " No way, No how, No reason can any employee of any PUBLIC AGENCY PURCHASE MEALS for any THIRD PARTY using PUBLIC MONEY or anything of Value! THIS MEANS, No party's, No candy gifts to developers, No to ANY and ALL GIFTS or ANY FORM OF GIFT to include practices used by any CITY COUNCIL or STAFF MEMBER!!! The LAW IS THE LAW!!! misuse of any and all PUBLIC FUNDS is ILLEGAL!!!(Above stated opinion can be reviewed at city hall.)

Paragraph 2 CITY'S RESPONSE: In light of the lack of guidance provided by the Attorney General, the City Council is currently considering a revised meal reimbursement policy that will provide more definitive gudiance in an area that the Attorney General has thus far declined to provide. We also note that Attorney General opinions are advisory. Ultimately, we believe that officials elected by the community are in the best position to determinine the " business necessity " respecting meal reimbursments. In determining that ultimate policy prerogative, the City Council appreciates the Grand Jury's apparent position that City funds should not be used with respect to meals for private individuals doing business with the City. The Council will necessarily weigh that position with the positive communication and business development opportunities that often come from hosting events for private individuals.

EM2's RESPONSE: The City Council, Staff Members and the City Attorney need to realize that the State Constitution is a Law far bigger than their/ her opinion. EM2 believes that the State Attorney General gave MORE THAN adequate guidance and that the City Attorney should do better than use her lack of prudence on the State Attorney Generals opinion. It is clear to EM2 that the Constitution, Article XVI, section 6, clearly gives difinition to the fact that the City cannot give permission for any public money be used for any private individual or anyone doing bussiness with the City or otherwise!!! All under the violation of that Constitution should/shall be held liable to the full extent of the law. Cut... case closed.!!!!!!.

Paragraph 3 City's RESPONSE: As a practical matter, the City Council notes a significant drop in both City Council and staff credit card charges for meals and meal reimbursement requests in the last eight months. This decrease corresponds to the implementation of revised practices by the new City Manager.

EM2's RESPONSE; WHAT REVISED PRACTISES? We have not seen any policy changes because the POLICY of THIS CITY STATES,"City Credit Cards can only be used for city business ONLY!!! Some of the City Council Members, the City Manager and the City Attorney have totally disregarded their own policy and have followed selfish and self made practices that even the Riverside County Grand Jury has noted THREE TIMES!!! The reason for a decrease in this type of spending is due to the fact that the city credit cards have not been used illegally lately!!! But the statement above is a direct admission that public funds WERE being used illegally!!! Also the City Council has not done anything to revise meal reimbursement with any significance. As a practical matter it is business as usual with respect to their point of view.

The next EM2 article will be about : LE, City COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE FORMAL ADOPTED AND UPDATED POLICIES and Procedures.....Surf On By and Check it out.