Invoices show Thorpe, Torres-Walker held private meetings with outside attorney inappropriately hired by city manager
By Allen D. Payton
Following the revelation in tonight’s Antioch City Council meeting agenda, that City Manager Con Johnson hired an outside attorney without proper permission of the city attorney, the first two invoices from the law firm were provided by Acting City Manager Forrest Ebbs today following multiple requests of city staff. The invoices show over $37,000 of work done including for closed session meetings with the city council and private meetings with Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker. (See Item O. under Consent Calendar)
The invoices show work began on Oct. 17 under the auspices of a “procedurally invalid” contract, according to the city staff report on the item, before Johnson signed the contract on Nov. 4. Also, the first interaction Gregory Rolen – partner in the San Francisco law firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP – had with the council was on Oct 25, 2022 for “Travel to and from closed session/attend the closed session” billed at 3.6 hours. He charges a rate of $410 per hour.
In addition, almost all of the first bill dated Jan. 12, 2023, for a total of $30,107.20 covered work on the city attorney’s contract, statutory powers, “Rules of Professional Responsibility”, ethical responsibilities and obligations, and work with the city council and Human Resources Director Ana Chavez.
The second invoice dated Feb. 21, 2023 for a total of $7,231.75 included a meeting with Thorpe and Torres-Walker that lasted almost three hours. The invoice shows “01/10/2023 Meeting with Mayor and Vice Mayor” for 2.9 hours. Plus, it shows travel to and from meetings, attendance at the council meeting on Jan. 24, 2023, and another “Teleconference with mayor regarding regulation” for 0.7 hours on Jan. 31, 2023.
That’s in addition to the private half-hour-long meeting Rolen had with Thorpe on Feb. 2, 2023, described as “Teleconference with mayor regarding representation city manager” as previously reported.
Questions for City Attorney, HR Director
In response to the information in the first two invoices, questions were sent Tuesday afternoon to City Attorney Smith and Human Resources Director Ana Cortez. They were asked, “Since outside attorney Greg Rolen did work regarding the city attorney’s contract can you please provide his current contract? Was it renewed for another three years in 2022 and does it run through 2025?”
Smith’s original contract began March 1, 2019 and lasted three years following the council’s 5-0 vote on Feb. 5 to hire him.
Cortez was asked why she worked with the outside attorney and if the city manager directed her to do so. She was also asked if she consulted with Smith to determine if it was proper before incurring the cost to the City.
Smith was asked, since the work was done under a ‘procedurally invalid’ contract, was the work product destroyed or must it be, or can it still be used, and what was the final product from Rolen’s work.
More Questions for Thorpe, Walker, Other Councilmembers
An email was sent to all five council members late Tuesday afternoon asking, “Now that city staff provided the first two invoices from attorney Greg Rolen of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, do you have any comment? Did any of you ask why an outside attorney was meeting with you in closed session?”
It was pointed out to them information from the first invoice showing, “12/04/2022 Initiate legal research concerning statutory powers of city Attorney” for 0.90 hours and on “12/05/2022 Locate, review and analyze city Attorney employment agreement” for 1.90 hours.
They were asked, “did the council ask Rolen to do that? Why? Did you not think to look at the Feb. 5, 2019 City Council Agenda item when Thomas was hired? It shows his original contract lasted three years. See Item #10 – 020519.pdf (antiochca.gov) Assuming it was renewed in 2022, it’s safe to say it was done so for another three years through 2025.
Thorpe and Walker were then asked, “why did you have a meeting with Rolen on Jan. 10, 2023 for almost three hours, separate from the other three council members? What did you discuss with him, which is not privileged as it was done under a “procedurally invalid” contract? Why weren’t the other council members included? Shouldn’t you pay for the cost of that meeting totaling $1,189 rather than the taxpayers?”
They all were asked, “why did you need Rolen to attend the council meeting for one hour on Jan. 24? Was that just for the Closed Session? Who invited him to do so? What was discussed with him?”
Finally, Thorpe was asked, “why did you have another teleconference meeting with Rolen on Jan. 31 ‘regarding regulation’ separate from the other four council members? What regulation did you discuss?”
An effort to reach Rolen for comment about the city attorney’s claim the contract was “procedurally invalid” and to ask him questions about his work with Johnson, Cortez and the city council was unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Please check back for any responses or other updates to this report.
the attachments to this post:
Page from Legal bill #2 3261063
Page 3 from Legal bill #1 3260098_Page_2
Page 2 from Legal bill #1 3260098
Page from Legal bill #2 3261063 private mtgs