The battle over the city’s $24.5 million trash contract will continue in the form of dueling legal appeals.
The City Council voted Thursday to appeal a court ruling that the city violated its own policy in awarding contracts when it gave the lucrative deal to Consolidated Disposal Services, a company that was not the lowest responsible bidder for the job. It is the second appeal in the case, which was filed by a group of residents seeking to nullify the contract. The plaintiffs, calling themselves Citizens for a Fair Trash Contract have already appealed the judge’s decision to dismiss allegations of corruption against Mayor Kenneth Stephens, and Council members Marilynn Poe and Troy Edgar for their role in awarding the contract.
While the city is appealing the ruling, officials will reach out to the plaintiffs and try to find a middle ground, said Edgar. Otherwise, the appeals could drag on for years, he said.
“We all think we are right. Whether we are right or not, the community deserves better,” said Edgar. “Going about it unilaterally doesn’t seem like it’s in the best interests of the city. If we can use this opportunity to heal things that are much deeper than a lawsuit, I say, ‘Let’s do it.’”
Filed on the cusp of the 2010 City Council election, Edgar has contended that the suit is politically motivated and reflects deeper politics rifts on the city council, which tends to be divided with Councilman Warren Kusumoto and Councilwoman Gerri Graham-Mejia squaring off against the other three on many major issues.
However, in a letter to the mayor earlier this week, Kusumoto seemed to hint that the council’s decision to appeal the lawsuit was, in itself, a political move.
“…the Council Majority has the appearance of a Conflict of Interest on determining the best course of action…” because of the corruption allegations under appeal, he wrote in the letter.
Kusumoto recused himself from the city’s legal negotiations, noting, “I have consistently been the minority viewpoint, so my vote is easily overcome by the Council Majority.”
If the city had chosen not to appeal the lawsuit, the council could have opted to revise the city policy or rebid the trash contract.
1) The suit was frivolous. - and as Judge Banks ruling shows, that was not accurate. 2) That the suit was "a political stunt" The last two elections prior to the filing the following people ran for public office and lost. Parker, Driscoll, Emerson, Grose, Zarkos, and Sheridan (there may have been one or two more). NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE are members of Citizens. Neither of the public members of Citizens has ever stated that they wish to hold public office in the City of Los Alamitos, and in fact both have clearly stated that they have NO interest in doing so. As has been stated here before, the only remedy for all three causes of action was the voiding of the contract and re-bidding according to City Code. No requests for people to step down or resign. Just "do the right thing." And Judge Banks agreed. Mr. Edgar has every right to have his opinion, just like anyone else, but he doesn't have the right to have his own facts. Reporting the "he said" as factual when there is no evidence to support the "he said" does the readers a dis-service. And when the facts actually show the inverse of Mr. Edgar's opinions, well that should be pointed out.
"The plaintiffs, calling themselves Citizens for a Fair Trash Contract have already appealed the judge’s decision to dismiss allegations of corruption against Mayor Kenneth Stephens, and Council members Marilynn Poe and Troy Edgar for their role in awarding the contract." Let's be very clear. After the suit was filed against the City, et al. the City responded with a suit against the plaintiffs called an anti-SLAPP. That suit claimed that the plaintiffs in filing their suit were attacking the protected free speech rights of the defendants. In two of the three causes of action Judge Banks ruled that there was no infringement. In the third cause of action Judge Banks ruled that there was. It is the anti-SLAPP ruling by Judge Banks that is being appealed by the plaintiffs. Judge Banks clearly stated in the anti-SLAPP ruling that he did not consider or weigh the facts or the plaintiffs claims in the third cause of action in their case. His ruling was very narrow, and just on the free speech rights and whether bringing the third cause of action violated those rights. Thus the claim that the allegations were dismissed is misleading as the allegations were never reviewed by Judge Banks and never ruled on by Judge Banks. The allegations still stand, and if the appeal is successful the third cause of action will be allowed to continue to trial.
Alas, reading comprehension seems to be a big problem for you. "public members" is stipulated within the statement that was made. There is nothing about anyone other than "public members" stipulated and yet you seem to feel a need to say that those non-public members should be included in the statement, and it's a lie because it specifically doesn't include them. Like I said, reading comprehension is a major problem for you. It may be why you still think that they followed the City Code when Judge Banks clearly said that they didn't. So, as far as lying goes, Lissette and Chuckie are the queen and king of it within our small city. And the above is just a small example of how they do it. Misread a clear statement of fact and build their lies on that.
Your projection "there are lies here" is based on the fact that you never come with any facts, just lies and aspersions which you cast with abandon. Unlike you, I will refer again to the source, Judge Banks decision. But thanks for crawling out of the woodwork to show people that there are still evil and ugly things lurking in our fine community. As for your constant whine that this was political, then why was the ONLY remedy by the Citizen's that the contract be voided and that it be rebid in accordance to the City Code? No one was asked to resign, step down, or do anything other than follow the City Code. To support your claim that the effort was political you would have to show that the suit was filed and had no basis in fact (which can't be done based on Judge Banks ruling on the writ) or that the plaintiffs asked for some political remedy, which they did not. As for the personal attacks, Let them stand as they say more about you than I ever can.