We object to decision on attorney’s office

In a time of tight state budgets and an uncertain economy, it is

difficult to argue when one of our cities tries to keep costs down.

There are occasions, however, when the zeal to cut costs seems

questionable, and the Costa Mesa City Council decision to do away

with its attorney’s office and enter into a contract with an outside

firm is one of those instances. At the least, it is a decision that

seems to demand more debate and deliberation than it received last

week.

Our central concern is whether cutting the city attorney’s office

actually will save the city money. The staff report, in our opinion,

leaves that a large question. The attorney’s office, which in past

months comprised four employees and two open positions, cost the city

about $416,000 for 5,400 hours of work annually. The firm the city

chose to negotiate a contract with, Jones & Mayer, would cost more

than double that, $864,000, for the same number of hours. However,

city staff members write: “If the legal services are contracted out,

it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in the number of

hours of legal services billed to the City since attorneys will not

be attending many of the meetings now attended by in-house legal

staff.”

That seems a big “if” to us. At the least, the city will have to

limit its use of attorneys to 2,500 hours a year -- an average of

just 48 hours a week -- simply to come out even. That sounds like a

lot, until an issue hits the city that demands several lawyers’ time

to handle.

We also worry that council or city staff members will be reticent

to call on attorneys if they know it will cost the city.

Beyond that, however, we are concerned about the speed of the

decision because of the controversy that has surrounding the city

attorney’s office in the past few years. The review of the attorney’s

office that led to the council’s decision, after all, came after the

city was sued by former City Atty. Jerry Scheer, a case that was

settled for $750,000. While city officials have said there was no

connection between their decision to look at the office’s efficiency

and the Scheer suit, the timing is coincidental enough that city

officials should have been as careful as possible to assure residents

that their decision was based on budget concerns and nothing more.

The swiftness of their decision was not reassuring.

Another troubling piece is that the discussion took place toward

the end of a long council meeting, with the vote happening around 1

a.m. That seems far too late for such an important vote, one that

fundamentally alters how the city will do business.

Finally, we wonder what this decision portends. If a key city

department such as the attorney’s office can be cut for budgetary

reasons, where else might the knife slice off? Should the fire

department be contracted out to Orange County? Should the police

department come under the Sheriff’s Department, at a potentially

substantial savings? By choosing to do away with the city attorney’s

office, city leaders have opened the door to these questions. We

doubt they are ones they seriously want to ask.