City Attorney Carl Newton Resigns

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Effective January 1, 2011, City Attorney Carl Newton, will retire according to the City Council agenda:

Upon the completion of twenty-three years of service as City Attorney by Carl K.

Newton, he has elected to retire from the full-time practice of law as of January 1, 2011.

Mr. Newton will still be available at Burke, Williams & Sorensen to work on special assignments and for consultation on behalf of the City on an as-needed basis. Joseph M. Montes, who currently serves as Assistant City Attorney, by way of an amendment to the Agreement for City Attorney Service, dated January 1, 2005, between the City of Santa Clarita and the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, shall be appointed City Attorney, effective January 1, 2011. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to said agreement designating Joseph M. Montes as City Attorney, effective January 1, 2011. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement for City Attorney Service, dated January 1, 2005, shall remain in full force and effect.

Also on next week’s Council agenda: Benz Road, second reading and adoption of campaign contribution limits, update on the $18 million 21 point business plan, Speed limits for the Cross Valley Connectgor and more. COUNCIL AGENDA

Comments (56)

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

No one shrugged like Carl Newton!

CCJuly 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm

OMG, I actually agree with Tim!

navigatorJuly 9, 2010 at 8:52 am

Glad to see that Montes is replacing Newton. He is definitely the sharpest tack in that barrel.

CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:50 am

Navigator, obviously you have not spent the last 15 years watching the current senior city staff members, Ken Pulskamp and Lisa Hardy Weber, operate. Montes is merely the puppet of those long established city employees who are firmly in the pocket of the 4-5 largest developers in the community. Knowledgeable observers of his performance as legal advisor to the Planning Commission have been disgusted by the way he panders to those city employees and to Paul Brotzman (who replaced the very manipulative Jeff Lambert). The City Attorney’s job is to protect the economic interests of the city, to not facilitate planning staff employees “giving away the store” to developers, in order to either (a) feather their nests, (b) position themselves for private employment when times are good, like Jeff Lambert did or (c) feed the the long term city employees’ egos and empire building. The problematic city staff members are those who were trained by former City Manager George Caravalho. Montes has shown himself to NOT be independent, and instead merely be a rubber stamp for the city staff, when advising the Planning Commission. Of course, that’s what the senior city staff wants. Unfortunately, because Santa Clarita has not had a truly independent City Attorney, there have been no adults riding herd on the staff. As a result, among the disastrous economic screw ups foisted upon Santa Clarita by Caravalho and his disciples (who now control all key positions in the city staff): $22 Million lost (and city hall mortgaged) to pay for a tiny piece of Golden Valley Road and no money to pay it; a condemnation lawsuit for the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station which has just come alive again after 8 years, where the city has not paid rent in 8 years PLUS being liable to pay the fair market value of the parking lot at “top of the market” prices; the city being bled dry in sweet heart deals with Newhall Land and then getting stiffed out of the money due the city through Newhall Land’s bankruptcy; the city’s Planning Director giving away the store in dealing with developers whose projects include useless pockets of “open space”, agreeing that the city will maintain that open space; building city facilities on land contaminated with toxics which have not been remediated; and on and on. Santa Clarita City Hall has been and continues to be a hopeless cesspool of self interest and profit taking at public expense. This kid Montes is too young, weak and inexperienced to challenge the entrenched Caravalho disciples. He is going to be just another rubber stamp like Newton, profiting every time the city makes a mis-step, which could have been avoided with adult supervision and a forceful personality to protect the city’s pocket book. Look at Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Agoura Hills. Their city employees do not do the stupid things which Santa Clarita’s do.

navigatorJuly 12, 2010 at 7:38 am

J. – I realize that you you are accomplished in the field of law and I respect your opinion. My view is strictly within the field of law. I have watched Joe “perform” numerous times and found him to be very good at his job of interpreting the law. Does our City staff make errors? No question. Do I despise them all for it? No. I find myself able to approach anyone at City Hall with my concerns about a problem or project. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Life goes on.

ToddJuly 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we don’t have our own city attorney’s office that is in-house, rather than contracted out? As the 4th largest city in Los Angeles County, isn’t it time that we start growing up and stop relying on outside contracts so much???

JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm

hahaha. This is the Republican philosophy of Government at work. Outsourced bus drivers? Check. Outsourced police? Check. Outsourced City Attorney who actually pretty much works only for the City Council? check. Outsourced fire and paramedics? check. They’d outsource the streets and landscape guys too, if they could get away with it. It makes for a lean and mean organization in many respects, but in others, it’s just strange and conflicting.

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Jeff: The do outsource most of the landscape maintenance since a lot of common landscaping falls under the jurisdiction of LMD’s (Landscape Maintenance Districts) that hire private companies to handle maintenance.

JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:04 pm

The City’s arborists and parks crew are employees. That is what I was referring to.

CCJuly 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Just think about how much they are saving in Pension and medical costs.

Saugus SplasherJuly 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm

I’ve read that Santa Clarita is one of the most financially stable cities because the bureaucracy is small at city hall and instead they contract for many services. If “growing up” means overhiring city bureaucrats and then having to do layoffs and let your streets crumble like Los Angeles is doing, then I hope Santa Clarita never “grows up.” You don’t hear about Santa Clarita having a late budget or a budget deficit or doing layoffs. It really is odd and it shows that some people will just never be happen when people find it “strange and conflicting” that as a young city Santa Clarita has not repeated the mistakes made by “grown up” cities.

lstaedtlerJuly 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Great post Saugus Splasher.

BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 8:07 am

Were you being sarcastic? Think of the families without medical or future security. If a city won’t provide jobs with benefits, how can we expect any business to do so? The pay is too low to purchase these on the free(?) market!

Saugus SplasherJuly 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Haha. That gave me a good laugh. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to support higher city expenditures so they can hire more bureaucrats who they can give bigger and better benefits than the private sector? Hello! That’s what is busting the budget of the state and the city of LA. Have you been paying attention?

Bill ReynoldsJuly 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Saugus Splasher, you are absolutely correct! I can’t wait to see a brave politician step up and declare that upon being elected he or she will promote a bill to unload the government of all postal services. Can you just imagine the cost savings to tax payers!?

Saugus SplasherJuly 11, 2010 at 12:06 am

The postal service actually does not costs the taxpayers a penny because no tax dollars are used to support it. All costs are born by patrons of the postal service (ie, when they buy stamps). Having said that, with email and online banking, I can’t remember the last time I used stamp! Ending Saturday delivery would be fine with me….

Bill ReynoldsJuly 11, 2010 at 5:57 am

CBSNEWS (3.25.09): Post Office Desperate for Financial Help. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/25/national/main4891188.shtml

Silence DogoodJuly 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Contracting out city attorney services is a whole lot less accountable, and if the past is any indication, a whole lot more expensive! Every other city in California has a better deal for attorney services than Santa Clarita does. Don’t look to either the City Manager or City Council to change it.

navigatorJuly 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm

You’re it!

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm

I am bothered that on any issue, the lawyer SCV gets is only the best one for the job at Burke Williams & Sorensen, not the best lawyer on the issue period. After losing that massive jury verdict against the City in the condemnation trial where SC took only a small piece of land for Golden Valley Road, I think my point is made. And now the mess with the condemnation of the Metrolink parking lot begins.

Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm

As a tax payer I prefer lean and mean and I don’t understand how outsourcing is strange and conflicting. The landscape crews I see around town are contractors not city employees. Regardless of who the City attorney is or where he or she is from, they will meet expectations of the city council majority, otherwise it’s on to another attorney.

JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm

When you were in the Army did they outsource cooking duty to, oh I don’t know, Sysco Inc? Did they outsource detention duty to Halliburton? How about guard duty and shit burning duty? I know it’s not a direct comparison, but I’ve often wondered what real military guys think of the outsourcing component of the modern US military. Good/Bad/Indifferent?

Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm

No offense, but you failed to answer the question of “strange and conflicting”. By the way, the military routinely outsources many duties. For example, in Vietnam at our base camp there were Vietnamese working KP, laundry room, etc.

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm

How many were VC?

Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Good question…

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Bill, SC has been “outsourcing” to the same law firm for 23 years. Talk to Cam about all of the screw ups and boondoggles she’s seen.

JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Conflicting in that these employees aren’t public servants, they work for a private sector corporation. Strange in that I’ve never seen a City Attorney outsourced before. Nor so many other facets of city government. You didn’t answer whether you like/dislike military outsourcing?

Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm

I do like military outsourcing – absolutely. Are private sector corporations bad? If so, why? Just because “you” haven’t seen city attorney outsourcing does not make it strange. Any attorney will conduct those duties to the will of the City Council majority. If our city obtains better bargains using outside services (not pay personal benefits, etc.), what is there not to like?

cashJuly 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm

these employees aren’t ” public servants”! What have you been smoking Jeff? Give credit were credit is due, the taxpayers are the servants.

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 1:00 pm

The problem with an in house City Attorney is that: 1. They would staff up an expensive office of assistant City Attorneys and support staff that would persist no matter the required legal work of the City; and 2. The would end up contracting with expensive outside attorneys anyway for specialized legal work, and maybe some not even so specialized because everyone is so concerned about making a mistake. So you would end up duplicating current expenses.

Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Exactly! This is why I prefer that our City’s legal department have minimal “inside” staff personnel and “farm out” for specialized requirements. Retain less office space, furniture, utilities, staff, benefits, etc.

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Tim, that didn’t happen in Simi Valley. The had an excellent in-house City Attorney and one assistant. Otherwise, they used outside lawyers only when sued. It was very cost effective. By the way, in most law firms, the partner who “brought in the client” gets 10% of all hourly billings by his whole firm as to that client. Ten percent of a several million dollars per year his a heck of a lot of “commission” to either Newton (who will still be a partner in the firm) or this new guy Montes.

IHeartSCVJuly 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Burke, Williams & Sorensen is paid $165/hr for retainer services (like attending City Council meetings), and $215/hr for non-retainer services (slightly less if it’s an associate instead of a partner). For you attorney types out there: is that a pretty typical rate for this kind of situation?

IHeartSCVJuly 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Sorry, those are old numbers–it’s $180 for retainer, $230 non-retainer

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm

That’s not expensive, but I am sure they get paid for travel time to and from the council meetings, and also probably can read legal updates while sitting at the City Council meetings waiting for someone to ask them a legal question. (In my short time as an attorney I worked with experienced attorneys who during their time had done some City Attorney work for small cities. They always made a point of reading something or being engaged in something else until an elected official asked for their advice so it was clear they were just an advisor and had no connection to the deliberative process.)

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm

They make it up in volume, just like Ralphs. Every time a city staff person screws up, the cash register rings.

cashJuly 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Yes, the rate is typical. Many Corporations have large legal staffs and lawyers in that case a paid much less. Private practice lawyers, the kind the city hires when Carl is in over his head, can be paid much more depending on their speciality.

lstaedtlerJuly 9, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Its actually fairly common for city positions to be contracted out. Typically, the younger the City is, the more positions are contracted out. Some Cities even contract out public works and planning positions. That’s also why older established cities such as Los Angeles are having a hard time with the economic recession because there is so much money tied up with personnel and benefits. The beauty of outsourcing is that your able to reduce or eliminate contracted employees much easier. For example the Cities of Lancaster, Camarillo, Calabasas, Buena Park, Norwalk, and Barstow have contraced City Attorneys. I think if you do a search, you’ll find that probably nearly all Cities incorporated after 1950 use contracted City Attorneys. Generally, cities older than that will have in-house staff. That’s just a guide and of course there will be exceptions. Easy way to find out if a city is contracted is look at that City’s budget which is generally posted on their website.

mikecJuly 10, 2010 at 10:40 am

70% of the city of LA’s budget goes toward Police and Fire. Remaining 30% is for all other services including the city attorney’s office. Also the CA’s office handles all workers comp; misd. criminal cases and all civil litigation. Under Nuch, they have dramatically cut back on outsourcing to law firms, who were charging anywhere from $250 to $500 an hour. Also, the city of santa clarita has 30 vacant positions which have not been filled, so they have cut back on employees as well…best bet go work for the DWP!

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm

However, Carl Newton brags on his personal page, on his firm’s website, that Santa Clarita is the largest city in the state with a contract city attorney. [Perhaps implying "The biggest suckers in the state are my clients."]

lstaedtlerJuly 10, 2010 at 8:06 pm

Then Mr. Newton is not correct. Quick search reveals Fontana (190,000) and Irvine (217,000) both have contracted City Attorneys. Maybe Mr. Newton’s site hasnt been updated since 1987. Pop. estimates from CA Dept. of Finance

RemStarJuly 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm

I’m pretty sure the city does outsource street paving.

BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 8:12 am

I would like to see a year by year detail of what this city attorney has done for us. Then I want Newton to explain why he isn’t filing suit against the state for attempting to extort money from us to build desal plants to clean already fouled water! What has he done? I don’t know.

Saugus SplasherJuly 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Don’t be hard on yourself, Brian. Apparently what you don’t know could fill a big book….

Timothy MyersJuly 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Brian: Since the City Attorney is not an elected official, he can only act at the behest of the City Council. Ask they City Council why they have not asked him to file suit.

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm

“Only acting at the behest of the City Council” has, historically, led to two results: (1) Planning staff members practicing law without a license, screwing up, and the city getting sued for it; and (2) The Council having no idea what is going on in the day-to-day of litigation, and thus having no idea if the case is being “over worked” as a means of running up bills. That’s why rational cities, like Simi Valley, have an “in house General Counsel” equal to the City Manager, whose principle job is to make sure the staff is not going off half cocked and to make sure that outside attorneys (like Burke Williams & Sorensen) are not over-billing the city or taking action to cover their ashes relating to prior malpractice. Bottom line, as a lawyer, the new City Attorney is a 16 year old, and a pretty boy hand picked by the city staff who clearly want someone they can push around. There were other, more experienced lawyers at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, who know far more about the city’s long term problems, in line to replace Carl Newton when he retired. Draw your own conclusions. I’d take Carl Newton (even though he falls asleep) over this new kid any day of the week.

Love Santa ClaritaJuly 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm

What do you have against Joe Montes? He seems to be more engaged than Newton and actually knows what he is talking about. Newton may have been good in the past, but he seemed incoherent at times when he has been previously asked an opinion. Let’s go on with the new.

lstaedtlerJuly 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Joe Montes has worked with the City for years and has been the #2 person for a while. Agree with previous poster. Carl Newton may ave been good in the past, but he has mentally checked out the last several years.

CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:26 am

The opinion of lots of community activists and lawyers, who are old and have been watching activities in corrupt cities for 30+ years is that Montes is in the pocket of city staff members who are controlled by major developers. He is not independent, and he is very inexperienced.

CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:34 am

Montes is merely the puppet of long established city employees who are firmly in the pocket of the 4-5 largest developers in the community. Observers of his performance as legal advisor to the Planning Commission have been disgusted by the way he panders to those city employees. The City Attorney’s job is to protect the economic interests of the city, to not facilitate planning staff employees “giving away the store” to developers, in order to either (a) feather their nests, (b) position themselves for private employment when times are good, like Jeff Lambert did or (c) feed the the long term city employees’ egos and empire building. Montes has shown himself to NOT be independent, and instead merely be a rubber stamp for the city staff. Of course, that’s what the senior city staff wants.

Saugus SplasherJuly 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm

According to the California Bar Association, Joe Montes has been practicing law for 16 years. A quick Google search shows he is the City Attorney for the cities of Alhambra, Moorpark and Rosemead. You are poorly informed (and more likely lying) when you say he is “very inexperienced.” Go grind your ax on another issue, but first try to support your comments/agenda with facts.

Berta González-HarperJuly 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

You should be careful putting too much faith in the comments of those who post anonymously. Coastal Sage is an attorney who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of her “clients” against the City of Santa Clarita so has her own agenda when slamming opposing counsel. She also has her own problems regarding ethics. In one instance in particular, as I recall she was sued, and I believe the plaintiffs won, for engaging in very unethical and cruel behavior regarding horses in her charge. Apparently, suffering life-altering injuries in a terrible accident involving a Metrolink train has not helped her reflect on living a life of truth but instead has made her even more prone to disseminating half-truths or outright lies about others. She has posted several lies about many people including myself in recent months. Just thought you should know more about the “source” of this “information”. PS I don’t work for the City.

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

You’ll never find out anything, because the detail on Burke Williams & Sorensen’s monthly bills is covered by attorney client privilege. The only detail you can sometimes get is detail on a particular case, like the Golden Valley Road condemnation against Santa Clarita LLC. Then again, attorneys for other public agencies in SCV have been accused, by their own Board members, of intentionally misclassifying their billing between one matter and another as a means of obscuring what is going on…for fear of getting the taxpayers riled up, or to intentionally, falsely and misleadingly rile them up, as the circumstances require.

CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm

The only detail you can sometimes get is A TOTAL on a particular case, like the Golden Valley Road condemnation against Santa Clarita LLC.

BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm

So we have no way of knowing if Newton was fighting for us or for simply settling. We don’t know who he’s looking out for. Why is accountability such a foreign term?

Silence DogoodJuly 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

CoastalSage, thanks for the insight and the particulars. And from the responses on this board, I think we can fairly easily identify the city employees, city contractors, and other beneficiaries feeding at the public trough.

Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 8:42 am
No one shrugged like Carl Newton!
CCJuly 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
OMG, I actually agree with Tim!
navigatorJuly 9, 2010 at 8:52 am
Glad to see that Montes is replacing Newton. He is definitely the sharpest tack in that barrel.
CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:50 am
Navigator, obviously you have not spent the last 15 years watching the current senior city staff members, Ken Pulskamp and Lisa Hardy Weber, operate. Montes is merely the puppet of those long established city employees who are firmly in the pocket of the 4-5 largest developers in the community. Knowledgeable observers of his performance as legal advisor to the Planning Commission have been disgusted by the way he panders to those city employees and to Paul Brotzman (who replaced the very manipulative Jeff Lambert). The City Attorney’s job is to protect the economic interests of the city, to not facilitate planning staff employees “giving away the store” to developers, in order to either (a) feather their nests, (b) position themselves for private employment when times are good, like Jeff Lambert did or (c) feed the the long term city employees’ egos and empire building. The problematic city staff members are those who were trained by former City Manager George Caravalho. Montes has shown himself to NOT be independent, and instead merely be a rubber stamp for the city staff, when advising the Planning Commission. Of course, that’s what the senior city staff wants. Unfortunately, because Santa Clarita has not had a truly independent City Attorney, there have been no adults riding herd on the staff. As a result, among the disastrous economic screw ups foisted upon Santa Clarita by Caravalho and his disciples (who now control all key positions in the city staff): $22 Million lost (and city hall mortgaged) to pay for a tiny piece of Golden Valley Road and no money to pay it; a condemnation lawsuit for the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station which has just come alive again after 8 years, where the city has not paid rent in 8 years PLUS being liable to pay the fair market value of the parking lot at “top of the market” prices; the city being bled dry in sweet heart deals with Newhall Land and then getting stiffed out of the money due the city through Newhall Land’s bankruptcy; the city’s Planning Director giving away the store in dealing with developers whose projects include useless pockets of “open space”, agreeing that the city will maintain that open space; building city facilities on land contaminated with toxics which have not been remediated; and on and on. Santa Clarita City Hall has been and continues to be a hopeless cesspool of self interest and profit taking at public expense. This kid Montes is too young, weak and inexperienced to challenge the entrenched Caravalho disciples. He is going to be just another rubber stamp like Newton, profiting every time the city makes a mis-step, which could have been avoided with adult supervision and a forceful personality to protect the city’s pocket book. Look at Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Agoura Hills. Their city employees do not do the stupid things which Santa Clarita’s do.
navigatorJuly 12, 2010 at 7:38 am
J. – I realize that you you are accomplished in the field of law and I respect your opinion. My view is strictly within the field of law. I have watched Joe “perform” numerous times and found him to be very good at his job of interpreting the law. Does our City staff make errors? No question. Do I despise them all for it? No. I find myself able to approach anyone at City Hall with my concerns about a problem or project. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Life goes on.
ToddJuly 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we don’t have our own city attorney’s office that is in-house, rather than contracted out? As the 4th largest city in Los Angeles County, isn’t it time that we start growing up and stop relying on outside contracts so much???
JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm
hahaha. This is the Republican philosophy of Government at work. Outsourced bus drivers? Check. Outsourced police? Check. Outsourced City Attorney who actually pretty much works only for the City Council? check. Outsourced fire and paramedics? check. They’d outsource the streets and landscape guys too, if they could get away with it. It makes for a lean and mean organization in many respects, but in others, it’s just strange and conflicting.
Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Jeff: The do outsource most of the landscape maintenance since a lot of common landscaping falls under the jurisdiction of LMD’s (Landscape Maintenance Districts) that hire private companies to handle maintenance.
JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:04 pm
The City’s arborists and parks crew are employees. That is what I was referring to.
CCJuly 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Just think about how much they are saving in Pension and medical costs.
Saugus SplasherJuly 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I’ve read that Santa Clarita is one of the most financially stable cities because the bureaucracy is small at city hall and instead they contract for many services. If “growing up” means overhiring city bureaucrats and then having to do layoffs and let your streets crumble like Los Angeles is doing, then I hope Santa Clarita never “grows up.” You don’t hear about Santa Clarita having a late budget or a budget deficit or doing layoffs. It really is odd and it shows that some people will just never be happen when people find it “strange and conflicting” that as a young city Santa Clarita has not repeated the mistakes made by “grown up” cities.
lstaedtlerJuly 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Great post Saugus Splasher.
BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 8:07 am
Were you being sarcastic? Think of the families without medical or future security. If a city won’t provide jobs with benefits, how can we expect any business to do so? The pay is too low to purchase these on the free(?) market!
Saugus SplasherJuly 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Haha. That gave me a good laugh. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to support higher city expenditures so they can hire more bureaucrats who they can give bigger and better benefits than the private sector? Hello! That’s what is busting the budget of the state and the city of LA. Have you been paying attention?
Bill ReynoldsJuly 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Saugus Splasher, you are absolutely correct! I can’t wait to see a brave politician step up and declare that upon being elected he or she will promote a bill to unload the government of all postal services. Can you just imagine the cost savings to tax payers!?
Saugus SplasherJuly 11, 2010 at 12:06 am
The postal service actually does not costs the taxpayers a penny because no tax dollars are used to support it. All costs are born by patrons of the postal service (ie, when they buy stamps). Having said that, with email and online banking, I can’t remember the last time I used stamp! Ending Saturday delivery would be fine with me….
Bill ReynoldsJuly 11, 2010 at 5:57 am
CBSNEWS (3.25.09): Post Office Desperate for Financial Help. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/25/national/main4891188.shtml
Silence DogoodJuly 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Contracting out city attorney services is a whole lot less accountable, and if the past is any indication, a whole lot more expensive! Every other city in California has a better deal for attorney services than Santa Clarita does. Don’t look to either the City Manager or City Council to change it.
navigatorJuly 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm
You’re it!
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I am bothered that on any issue, the lawyer SCV gets is only the best one for the job at Burke Williams & Sorensen, not the best lawyer on the issue period. After losing that massive jury verdict against the City in the condemnation trial where SC took only a small piece of land for Golden Valley Road, I think my point is made. And now the mess with the condemnation of the Metrolink parking lot begins.
Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm
As a tax payer I prefer lean and mean and I don’t understand how outsourcing is strange and conflicting. The landscape crews I see around town are contractors not city employees. Regardless of who the City attorney is or where he or she is from, they will meet expectations of the city council majority, otherwise it’s on to another attorney.
JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm
When you were in the Army did they outsource cooking duty to, oh I don’t know, Sysco Inc? Did they outsource detention duty to Halliburton? How about guard duty and shit burning duty? I know it’s not a direct comparison, but I’ve often wondered what real military guys think of the outsourcing component of the modern US military. Good/Bad/Indifferent?
Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm
No offense, but you failed to answer the question of “strange and conflicting”. By the way, the military routinely outsources many duties. For example, in Vietnam at our base camp there were Vietnamese working KP, laundry room, etc.
Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm
How many were VC?
Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Good question…
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Bill, SC has been “outsourcing” to the same law firm for 23 years. Talk to Cam about all of the screw ups and boondoggles she’s seen.
JeffJuly 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Conflicting in that these employees aren’t public servants, they work for a private sector corporation. Strange in that I’ve never seen a City Attorney outsourced before. Nor so many other facets of city government. You didn’t answer whether you like/dislike military outsourcing?
Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I do like military outsourcing – absolutely. Are private sector corporations bad? If so, why? Just because “you” haven’t seen city attorney outsourcing does not make it strange. Any attorney will conduct those duties to the will of the City Council majority. If our city obtains better bargains using outside services (not pay personal benefits, etc.), what is there not to like?
cashJuly 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm
these employees aren’t ” public servants”! What have you been smoking Jeff? Give credit were credit is due, the taxpayers are the servants.
Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 1:00 pm
The problem with an in house City Attorney is that: 1. They would staff up an expensive office of assistant City Attorneys and support staff that would persist no matter the required legal work of the City; and 2. The would end up contracting with expensive outside attorneys anyway for specialized legal work, and maybe some not even so specialized because everyone is so concerned about making a mistake. So you would end up duplicating current expenses.
Bill ReynoldsJuly 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Exactly! This is why I prefer that our City’s legal department have minimal “inside” staff personnel and “farm out” for specialized requirements. Retain less office space, furniture, utilities, staff, benefits, etc.
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Tim, that didn’t happen in Simi Valley. The had an excellent in-house City Attorney and one assistant. Otherwise, they used outside lawyers only when sued. It was very cost effective. By the way, in most law firms, the partner who “brought in the client” gets 10% of all hourly billings by his whole firm as to that client. Ten percent of a several million dollars per year his a heck of a lot of “commission” to either Newton (who will still be a partner in the firm) or this new guy Montes.
IHeartSCVJuly 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Burke, Williams & Sorensen is paid $165/hr for retainer services (like attending City Council meetings), and $215/hr for non-retainer services (slightly less if it’s an associate instead of a partner). For you attorney types out there: is that a pretty typical rate for this kind of situation?
IHeartSCVJuly 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Sorry, those are old numbers–it’s $180 for retainer, $230 non-retainer
Tim MyersJuly 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm
That’s not expensive, but I am sure they get paid for travel time to and from the council meetings, and also probably can read legal updates while sitting at the City Council meetings waiting for someone to ask them a legal question. (In my short time as an attorney I worked with experienced attorneys who during their time had done some City Attorney work for small cities. They always made a point of reading something or being engaged in something else until an elected official asked for their advice so it was clear they were just an advisor and had no connection to the deliberative process.)
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm
They make it up in volume, just like Ralphs. Every time a city staff person screws up, the cash register rings.
cashJuly 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Yes, the rate is typical. Many Corporations have large legal staffs and lawyers in that case a paid much less. Private practice lawyers, the kind the city hires when Carl is in over his head, can be paid much more depending on their speciality.
lstaedtlerJuly 9, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Its actually fairly common for city positions to be contracted out. Typically, the younger the City is, the more positions are contracted out. Some Cities even contract out public works and planning positions. That’s also why older established cities such as Los Angeles are having a hard time with the economic recession because there is so much money tied up with personnel and benefits. The beauty of outsourcing is that your able to reduce or eliminate contracted employees much easier. For example the Cities of Lancaster, Camarillo, Calabasas, Buena Park, Norwalk, and Barstow have contraced City Attorneys. I think if you do a search, you’ll find that probably nearly all Cities incorporated after 1950 use contracted City Attorneys. Generally, cities older than that will have in-house staff. That’s just a guide and of course there will be exceptions. Easy way to find out if a city is contracted is look at that City’s budget which is generally posted on their website.
mikecJuly 10, 2010 at 10:40 am
70% of the city of LA’s budget goes toward Police and Fire. Remaining 30% is for all other services including the city attorney’s office. Also the CA’s office handles all workers comp; misd. criminal cases and all civil litigation. Under Nuch, they have dramatically cut back on outsourcing to law firms, who were charging anywhere from $250 to $500 an hour. Also, the city of santa clarita has 30 vacant positions which have not been filled, so they have cut back on employees as well…best bet go work for the DWP!
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm
However, Carl Newton brags on his personal page, on his firm’s website, that Santa Clarita is the largest city in the state with a contract city attorney. [Perhaps implying "The biggest suckers in the state are my clients."]
lstaedtlerJuly 10, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Then Mr. Newton is not correct. Quick search reveals Fontana (190,000) and Irvine (217,000) both have contracted City Attorneys. Maybe Mr. Newton’s site hasnt been updated since 1987. Pop. estimates from CA Dept. of Finance
RemStarJuly 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I’m pretty sure the city does outsource street paving.
BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 8:12 am
I would like to see a year by year detail of what this city attorney has done for us. Then I want Newton to explain why he isn’t filing suit against the state for attempting to extort money from us to build desal plants to clean already fouled water! What has he done? I don’t know.
Saugus SplasherJuly 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Don’t be hard on yourself, Brian. Apparently what you don’t know could fill a big book….
Timothy MyersJuly 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Brian: Since the City Attorney is not an elected official, he can only act at the behest of the City Council. Ask they City Council why they have not asked him to file suit.
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm
“Only acting at the behest of the City Council” has, historically, led to two results: (1) Planning staff members practicing law without a license, screwing up, and the city getting sued for it; and (2) The Council having no idea what is going on in the day-to-day of litigation, and thus having no idea if the case is being “over worked” as a means of running up bills. That’s why rational cities, like Simi Valley, have an “in house General Counsel” equal to the City Manager, whose principle job is to make sure the staff is not going off half cocked and to make sure that outside attorneys (like Burke Williams & Sorensen) are not over-billing the city or taking action to cover their ashes relating to prior malpractice. Bottom line, as a lawyer, the new City Attorney is a 16 year old, and a pretty boy hand picked by the city staff who clearly want someone they can push around. There were other, more experienced lawyers at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, who know far more about the city’s long term problems, in line to replace Carl Newton when he retired. Draw your own conclusions. I’d take Carl Newton (even though he falls asleep) over this new kid any day of the week.
Love Santa ClaritaJuly 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm
What do you have against Joe Montes? He seems to be more engaged than Newton and actually knows what he is talking about. Newton may have been good in the past, but he seemed incoherent at times when he has been previously asked an opinion. Let’s go on with the new.
lstaedtlerJuly 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Joe Montes has worked with the City for years and has been the #2 person for a while. Agree with previous poster. Carl Newton may ave been good in the past, but he has mentally checked out the last several years.
CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:26 am
The opinion of lots of community activists and lawyers, who are old and have been watching activities in corrupt cities for 30+ years is that Montes is in the pocket of city staff members who are controlled by major developers. He is not independent, and he is very inexperienced.
CoastalSageJuly 11, 2010 at 8:34 am
Montes is merely the puppet of long established city employees who are firmly in the pocket of the 4-5 largest developers in the community. Observers of his performance as legal advisor to the Planning Commission have been disgusted by the way he panders to those city employees. The City Attorney’s job is to protect the economic interests of the city, to not facilitate planning staff employees “giving away the store” to developers, in order to either (a) feather their nests, (b) position themselves for private employment when times are good, like Jeff Lambert did or (c) feed the the long term city employees’ egos and empire building. Montes has shown himself to NOT be independent, and instead merely be a rubber stamp for the city staff. Of course, that’s what the senior city staff wants.
Saugus SplasherJuly 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm
According to the California Bar Association, Joe Montes has been practicing law for 16 years. A quick Google search shows he is the City Attorney for the cities of Alhambra, Moorpark and Rosemead. You are poorly informed (and more likely lying) when you say he is “very inexperienced.” Go grind your ax on another issue, but first try to support your comments/agenda with facts.
Berta González-HarperJuly 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm
You should be careful putting too much faith in the comments of those who post anonymously. Coastal Sage is an attorney who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of her “clients” against the City of Santa Clarita so has her own agenda when slamming opposing counsel. She also has her own problems regarding ethics. In one instance in particular, as I recall she was sued, and I believe the plaintiffs won, for engaging in very unethical and cruel behavior regarding horses in her charge. Apparently, suffering life-altering injuries in a terrible accident involving a Metrolink train has not helped her reflect on living a life of truth but instead has made her even more prone to disseminating half-truths or outright lies about others. She has posted several lies about many people including myself in recent months. Just thought you should know more about the “source” of this “information”. PS I don’t work for the City.
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm
You’ll never find out anything, because the detail on Burke Williams & Sorensen’s monthly bills is covered by attorney client privilege. The only detail you can sometimes get is detail on a particular case, like the Golden Valley Road condemnation against Santa Clarita LLC. Then again, attorneys for other public agencies in SCV have been accused, by their own Board members, of intentionally misclassifying their billing between one matter and another as a means of obscuring what is going on…for fear of getting the taxpayers riled up, or to intentionally, falsely and misleadingly rile them up, as the circumstances require.
CoastalSageJuly 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm
The only detail you can sometimes get is A TOTAL on a particular case, like the Golden Valley Road condemnation against Santa Clarita LLC.
BrianJuly 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm
So we have no way of knowing if Newton was fighting for us or for simply settling. We don’t know who he’s looking out for. Why is accountability such a foreign term?
Silence DogoodJuly 11, 2010 at 9:46 am
CoastalSage, thanks for the insight and the particulars. And from the responses on this board, I think we can fairly easily identify the city employees, city contractors, and other beneficiaries feeding at the public trough.