Dateline Commerce — Hews Media Group-Community News has obtained documents that show Superior Court Judge Henry Barela slamming the city of Commerce and the Commerce City Council for filing a lawsuit against Councilman Hugo Argumedo.
The lawsuit centers around a closed session meeting on April 21, 2015, among Mayor Lilia Leon, Mayor pro tem Tina Baca Del Rio, and Councilmembers Ivan Altamirano and Oralia Reballo. They voted 4-0 to use a little known law to initiate a lawsuit against the recently elected Mr. Argumedo.
The lawsuit was a culmination of several backroom deals.
One was about City Atty. Eduardo Olivo classifying a public letter, written by former Commerce Council candidate John Soria, as a closed session item to keep the lawsuit discussion away from public scrutiny and outside of the City Council chambers.
The letter asked for a change in the city’s theft and fraud policy. Mr. Olivo and Council applied their own interpretation to the letter, agreed the policy should be changed retroactively to include Mr. Argumedo, and initiated the “litigation. ”
In doing so, the Council violated the Brown Act by not adequately describing the Argumedo closed session item contained in the Council Agenda posted online.
Mr. Soria was a bitter rival of Mr. Argumedo. He finished last in the March 3 election.
This newspaper first reported that Mr. Soria lied on his campaign materials, claiming he was a “law enforcement professional.” In reality, he is a police dispatcher.
Mr. Soria had good reason to write the letter. Sources are telling the newspaper that if Mr. Argumedo loses the lawsuit, Mr. Soria would be endorsed by all City Council members to take his place.
This newspaper requested the “report out” of the April 21 closed session meeting that stated, “in regards to [the Argumedo issue], pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney [Olivo], Councilmember Argumedo recused himself from participating in the matter due to potential conflict of interest regarding the subject matter to be discussed and the potential initiation of litigation action by the city. Councilmember Argumedo left the room.”
The document went on to say, “Mayor Pro Tem Baca Del Rio moved, seconded by Mayor Leon, to direct City Attorney to initiate communication with the California Attorney General regarding the initiation of a “quo warranto” matter.
Councilmembers Altamirano, Reballo, Mayor Pro Tem Baca Del Rio and Mayor Leon all voted yes to initiate the costly litigation.
According to the AG’s website, the term “quo warranto” is Latin for “by what authority,” or “by what authority does this person hold this office? ”
Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies. For example, a quo warranto action may be brought to determine whether a public official satisfies a requirement that he or she resides in the district; or whether a public official is serving in two incompatible offices.
Interestingly and pertinent to Councilman Argumedo, quo warranto is not available to decide whether an official has committed misconduct in office.
The statement would be in direct opposition to the meaning of the Soria letter as interpreted by the City Attorney and Council, that is, to retroactively apply a fraud and theft policy so they can remove Mr. Argumedo.
Based on the vote, City Atty. Olivo will likely earn some hefty fees during litigation, as the process is very detailed.
Mr. Hews may be contacted at www.loscerritosnews.net
