For the second consecutive meeting, the Commerce City Council, along with City Atty. Eddie Olivo, recessed into closed session to discuss the “potential significant litigation” in relation to what can be described as a complaint letter aimed at newly elected and top vote-getter Councilman Hugo Argumedo.
Sources are telling Hews Media Group-Community News this is the first step by Mayor Lilia Leon, Mayor pro-tem Tina Baca Del Rio, and Councilmembers Ivan Altamirano and Oralia Reballo to recall the popular Mr. Argumedo.
Failed Commerce candidate John Soria, one of Mr. Argumedo’s bitter campaign rivals, submitted the letter just one month after the March 3 election.
Mr. Olivo and the Council members used the “potential significant litigation,” as defined in the Brown Act, to label the letter so it could be discussed in closed session, out of public scrutiny.
Those very actions, along with not specifically identifying the litigation to be discussed in the Council agenda posted online, places the Council in violation of the Brown Act.
One municipal attorney told Hews Media Group that the use of the wording “potential significant litigation” is extremely questionable as is the submittal and consideration of the letter by the Council into a closed session meeting.
“It’s the public’s right to know,” said the attorney. “The letter is not a closed session issue. They also did not adequately describe the litigation in the Council agenda.”
In addition, Mr. Argumedo was asked to recuse himself from both closed session meetings because of the “potential significant litigation,” indicating that Mr. Argumedo is already somehow a party to the “anticipated litigation.”
Residents told Hews Media Group at last Tuesday’s Council meeting that this is a scheme between the city attorney, the city administrator and the City Council to begin a recall movement against Mr. Argumedo.
Mr. Soria, who placed last in the election, garnering only 10 percent of the vote, often slammed Mr. Argumedo in campaign appearances.
Mr. Soria’s actions during the campaign contradicted his fraud assertions in his letter to City Administrator Jorge Rifa.
Hews Media Group was first to report that Mr. Soria blatantly lied on his direct mail materials sent to Commerce residents. Mr. Soria described himself as a “law enforcement professional” when in actuality he is a dispatcher.
In his campaign, Mr. Soria said he would “be independent” and “distance himself” from past Commerce politics. But weeks before the election, Hews Media Group exclusively obtained a photo of Mr. Soria with current Commerce Mayor Lelia Leon and Councilman Ivan Altamirano that showed both officials endorsing Mr. Soria.
Sources are telling Hews Media Group that Ms. Leon, Ms. Baca Del Rio, and Mr. Altamirano will endorse Mr. Soria in a recall campaign.
Mr. Soria’s letter was addressed to City Administrator J Rifa and also to “City Council,” but the emails under the “City Council” name were not revealed.
The letter specifically asked that Mr. Rifa change the theft and fraud policies of the city so someone who committed a crime against the city of Commerce cannot be elected.
The letter did not specifically threaten litigation.
The letter was extremely well written and contained many legal terms. But when asked by Hews Media Group, Mr. Soria maintained that he wrote the letter.
Mr. Rifa then inexplicably forwarded the letter to the entire City Council and City Attorney Olivo, saying, “This email was sent directly to you by John Soria.”
But the email was not originally sent to Mr. Olivo.
Mr. Rifa went on in a confusing manner, saying, “the email addresses were checked and seem to be correct. It may well be that the city firewall diverted them as spam.”
The Soria letter would have likely been ignored as a swipe at Mr. Argumedo, but in a highly unusual and suspect move, Mr. Olivo deemed the letter could have “potential significant litigation” and placed the letter under a general closed session on the Commerce City Council agenda item that stated: Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b), the City Council will confer with its legal counsel, and take the appropriate action with respect to significant exposure to litigation in four potential cases.
The letter was one of the “four potential cases.”
The closed session agenda entry violated Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act that states:
“If the session is closed…the body [City Council] shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed.”
The four cases — describing both parties to all the cases — should have been listed in the agenda item, but they were not, violating the Brown Act.
Mr. Hews may be contacted at loscerritosnews.net
