Citizens have the Right to View Eric Vail’s Contract. Vail’s other Employers have the Right to know Vail’s Involvement with Beaumont.
The October 16, 2018, Beaumont City Council Closed Session Agenda contained Item 2: Conference with Special Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) & (e)(1) Special Legal Counsel: Eric S. Vail; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP – One (1) item
Usually City Attorney John Pinkney reads the Closed Session Agenda, but City Manager Todd Parton read this one Agenda Item, which means that Pinkney has to recuse himself from reading the Agenda Item because it’s for him.
This is the 2nd time the Citizens of Beaumont have paid for Pinkney’s legal expenses.
The June 7, 2016, Beaumont City Council Agenda Item 3.e.: Resolution Authorizing Payment of Lawyers’ and Consultants’ Legal Fees: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/27646
But Vail isn’t a Criminal Defense Lawyer, he’s a City Attorney. The Burke Williams Sorensen webpage states: “Currently, Eric serves as City Attorney for the City of Hemet, City of Temple City, and City of Cathedral City..”
This time the Taxpayers are paying for a qualified City Attorney that has experience in city government and knows State laws. While Pinkney schedules extended Closed Session Meetings to fluff his paycheck a knowledgeable City Attorney had to be hired.
Another City Attorney was hired. The Public has the right to see the Contract and know how much he’s being paid and the terms of the Contract. Hemet, Temple City, and Cathedral City have the right to know what Vail has been contracted to do in Beaumont as it could effect them greatly.
The City refuses to release any documentation but has confirmed that yes; the Taxpayers are paying the Legal Fees of their City Attorney – Again.
Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:17 AM
To: libi , Judy Bingham
Cc: Andreanna Pfeiffer
As previously responded, the item in question is anticipated litigation. The California Public Records Act specifically exempts anticipated litigation from disclosure as it would be a violation of Attorney-Client Privilege. All documents in relation to discussion of the topic is exempt from disclosure.
John Pinkney and his firm, SBEMP, has recused themselves from any involvement with the anticipated litigation as it is a conflict of interest. There are no documents responsive for disclosure for this request of contract.