Bell officials oppose court-ordered monitor

Bell city officials are opposing an effort to have a court-appointed monitor watch over the scandal-rocked city, saying it could give investigators unlimited access to city documents and personnel records and help the state attorney general’s office strengthen its lawsuit against the city.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown filed suit against the city and eight current and former city leaders for allegedly plotting to enrich themselves with lucrative salaries, excessive benefits and personal loans.

While interim city leaders said they support the legal efforts to clean up City Hall and identify the fiscal damage to the municipality, the attorney general’s effort to have a court-appointed monitor oversee and have unfettered access to all matters relating to Bell puts the small city in an awkward position.

In addition, the City Council has been unable to muster a quorum since four members — including the mayor — were arrested on suspicion of misappropriating $5.5 million from the city. Without a council vote, Interim Chief Administrator Officer Pedro Carrillo and Interim City Atty. Jamie Casso say they lack the “unambiguous authority from the city” to enter into an agreement with the state.

Even if the council is able to meet, Casso said in a response letter to Brown’s office early this month, some members could be reluctant to approve a monitor and subject themselves to further scrutiny.

The council was expected to debate the issue two weeks ago, but the meeting was canceled when only one member showed up. Mayor Oscar Hernandez and Councilwoman Teresa Jacobo had just been released on bail and called out sick. Councilman George Mirabal remains jailed and Councilman Luis Artiga resigned soon after posting bail.

On Thursday, Brown’s office announced that it would seek a court-ordered monitor to watch over the small city southeast of downtown Los Angeles after talks with Bell officials ended.

According to the motion, the monitor would have access to all city documents. The monitor would also have the authority to look into items concerning the criminal charges and lawsuits against Bell officials and “any other allegations of fraud, dishonesty or mismanagement in the affairs of the city.”

The monitor would report back to the attorney general’s office and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, as well as hold a monthly forum to answer questions from the public. The monitor would stay in place until a month after the city elections in March, according to the motion.

A court hearing on the proposal is set for Nov. 17.

City officials in Bell say they repeatedly raised concerns about a monitor having unlimited access and then reporting back to an agency that is suing the city and to another that has brought criminal charges against city leaders.

The monitor would have access to client privilege documents. But the monitor would not report privileged information unless it believes the information relates to potentially criminal or fraudulent activity by any party involved, according to a September letter from Brown’s office to the city.

“If you allow the attorney general to see all documents, attorney-client privilege evaporates and I think it’s a reasonable objection,” said Ventura City Manager Rick Cole, who has written opinion pieces on how to resolve the Bell scandal. “But why would the [attorney general] be interested in giving attorney-client privilege? If you don’t have anything to hide that’s a problem. [Brown’s] justified in his skepticism.”

ruben.vives@latimes.com