The Cypress City Council by a vote of 3-2 Monday proved that Valley Vista Services can still generate enough votes to stay off the city’s radar, at least for now.

The Council, on a split vote, removed from consideration an item that emerged from their recent strategic planning meeting as a priority to be considered in the next six months.
The action came as a surprise to council member David Burke, who said he had been working with city manager Peter Grant to develop best practices around the sourcing of solid waste contracts since the previous council’s award estimated to be worth $100 million no bid contract to Valley Vista had generated so much controversy in the city.

The precise motion would have allowed the establishment of a two-member ad hoc subcommittee to study the best practices for the future awarding of waste-hauler contracts.
The Council’s strategic planning meeting was held on Sept. 18 and the best practices ad-hoc committee was listed as one of the strategic priorities, among others like the Myra Ave. pumping station, audio crosswalk signals, unfunded pension liability payments, business park modernization, etc.

However, in a twist, Council member Bonnie Peat made a motion to accept the strategic priorities without the waste hauler item.
“All right. I’ll make a motion to approve the six months strategic objections less the item related to item two, related to establishing an ad hoc subcommittee to identify best practices for building a solid waste franchise,” said Peat.

“It says recommend establishing an ad hoc subcommittee to identify best practices for bidding and awarding replace franchise. I know she had proposed that it’s not an imminent thing. I don’t know what happens with the contract, but right now I believe it goes to 2037,” said Peat.

“So I would like to propose that we push that out, at least to the next strategic and really have a discussion as to timing as to why we need to do it right now. I don’t see with everything else that we’ve got on our platter and some of the major activity we’ve got that it doesn’t hurt to move it out and to have a proper discussion.”
Mayor Anne Hertz-Mallari, who was attending the meeting virtually from Chicago, said she agreed.

“Thank you for bringing that up. I look at the complexity and quantity of the items in the six month strategic plan. I really think we have to consider staff capacity and ensure that we have enough time and resources to do the things that are the most urgent and important,” she said.

“I think this item should be deleted from consideration tonight,” she said.
An exacerbated Burke said all the staff time was already spent.

“Since we agreed to put it in strategic planning, however, I want to provide context. So this idea is something I’ve been working on since I got elected. And it’s an idea pertaining to make sure that we have good the best practices in place in terms of bidding and awarding or solid waste franchises,” he said.

“My colleagues have expressed concerns about our bandwidth and the amount of work related to this. So that I would say that the City Manager and I have been working on this for months, and I’ve already received input from department directors who considered comparable ordinances from other cities. And so I say that most of what I would consider heavy lifting on this item is already done,” he said.

“Given a lot of discussion in the community in the past couple of years around the issue, I think it’s important to be responsive to a lot of things that have come up and to take an opportunity to make sure that we have the best practices in place,” said Burke.
“I just I don’t really see why we wouldn’t have the ability to consent, he added.

Scott Minikus, Mayor Pro-tem, weighed in on the side of leaving it alone for now.

“My concern is that a lot can change in 10 years. And the Council at that time, which none of us will likely be here, could change course completely on that as well. So my concern is, although a lot of the upfront work has already been done, I think maybe not saying no to it but pushing it off for another six months,” he said.

“I concur with councilmember Burke,” said Council member Frances Marquez. “I think it’s really important that we hear the voices of the people and follow up,” she said.

“As a council member, when you participate in strategic planning, we all want our feedback to get into consideration and given that Councilmember Burke has been working on this for a while with the city manager. I think it’s critically important that we move forward with it just so that people feel that we’re doing our job and addressing their concerns,” she said.
The council voted 3-2 in favor of Peat’s motion to strike waste hauling contracts from the strategic planning agenda, with Peat, Hertz-Mallari an Minikus voting for the motion with Burke and Marquez voting against.

“I was surprised the item was removed because I was not proposing some radical idea. It was simply that sometime in the next six months, a subcommittee would explore options for how to improve the way the city awards solid waste franchise agreements in the future,” said Burke after the meeting.

“I think we as council members owe it to residents to—at the very least—have conversations about issues they have expressed concerns about, so I am disappointed, he said. During the recent election, eventual winners Peat and Minikus were criticized for independent campaign expenditures from the Safe Neighborhoods PAC which records show were funded by VVS officials and companies, according to local resident Edwin Kraemer in a warninghe made to residents in a Letter to the Editor then. “This is just one, recent, eample of the disturbing influence that money is having on politics and management in our city.”.

Minikus received more than $17,000 in independemt election assistance from the PAC while Peat received more than $7000, election records show. The contributions were perfectly legal, election officials said.

The Cypress City Council on Monday voted to authorize an investigation of some sort into themselves over a closed-session leak, even taking all decision-making authority over the process away from its city manager and city attorney, who are now also subjects of the purported investigation.

The move came in response to an article in the Sept. 13 edition of the ENE which cited sources indicating the City Council had voted in closed session to pause the trial and move to mediation on Nov. 1.

City documents indicate the Council was most recently scheduled to discuss the lawsuit in a closed session on Aug. 28. Moreover, in the video of that meeting, there are no mentions or announcements made during the public meeting that followed the closed session.

In fact, according to video records of the meeting, Mayor Anne Hertz-Mallari only told the public that the Council had met twice that same evening.

“This is our third meeting of the evening,” she said to begin the meeting, but neither she nor legal counsel Fred Galante made any mention of the closed session discussion or decisions which presumably had been one of the two other meetings referenced by the mayor.

Earlier this year, after months and months of closed session discussions, the plaintiff alleging the city was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act finally took the city to Superior Court.

On Sept. 13, the ENE reported that at some point in a recent closed session meeting, the council voted to pause the lawsuit and agreed to meet with a court-approved mediator in Encino.

“It is our responsibility in those closed sessions to keep those private and it’s just a matter of trust,” said Hertz-Mallari in opening the discussion of the leak. “We are working to represent the city’s best interest,” she said. “If that information got out, it shouldn’t (have) and I want to know why,” the mayor said.

While the Council seemed intent on using the leak to further punish a favorite target on the council, Kevin Shenkman, the plaintiff’s attorney in the case, took the unusual step of calling into Monday’s meeting to personally inform the Council no City Council members were involved in the leak.

“In this particular instance, I happen to know how the Event News Enterprise came across that information,” said Shenkman.

“And that puts me in somewhat of a difficult position because on the one hand, I am not a snitch, and I will not snitch, and on the other hand, I’ve also seen and heard the insinuation this week that the leak was from a particular Council member, and I do not want to allow innocent parties to face accusations whey they shouldn’t,” the attorney said.
“And so, I am telling you now that none of the council, and I know this as a fact, that none of the Council members had anything to do with the ENE receiving that information,” he told the Council.

Given Shenkman’s statement, Council member David Burke attempted to derail what appeared to be a locomotive effort toward an internal investigation, saying the Council was told by the plaintiff’s attorney that no member of the Council was involved in leaking the info.

“Regarding the proposed investigation, I do not support that idea,” said Burke.

“At this time. I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves. And then my colleagues have jumped to conclusions that are not supported by what we know,” he said. “Based on the letters that were recently published by Mayor Hertz-Mallari and the respective attorneys in the CVRA case, I believe my colleagues have misunderstood some things pertaining to the article in the Event News-Enterprise,” said Burke.

“As a result, some of the things written in those two letters, which are related to the investigation don’t make sense,” he said.

“I say that, so residents understand that we are not talking about a massive leak of highly important information. We are talking about vote totals, and vote totals have sometimes been reported out of closed-session meetings in the past,” said Burke, also an attorney, told the Council.

“In fact, they have sometimes been reported out of closed session in connection with this very case. So this is not the type of information that is particularly sensitive. And has not been made publicly before. Nonetheless, people are portraying this disclosure of the vote totals as, quote, putting politics before the law by brazenly violating the sanctity of closed-session proceedings. I disagree.”

Burke reminded the Council that they could have informed residents of the decision themselves, but did not, and said whatever happened, “it’s so inconsequential. It seems clear that vote totals getting out was a mistake or an accident and it doesn’t sound like a Council member trying to undermine our case.”

Burke said the council’s new “Civility, Governance and Conduct” code prevents “prejudging others.”

But Council member Bonnie Peat disagreed with Burke that vote totals don’t matter.
“They do matter. As I said earlier, when you do a vote, and especially in a closed session, there are discussions that surround that vote,” said Peat.

“And so, you know, the decisions that we make or the votes or the discussions we must take lightly, are holding everything and saying gosh, you know, why am I making this decision, to do yes or no, right in terms of providing further direction. Without that context,

I think the votes can be very damaging, and can lead to conclusions that aren’t correct,” she added.

Mayor Pro-tem Scott Minikus was also unmoved by Shenkman’s admission and thought a crime had been committed.

“I just want to echo a couple of things that Councilmember Peat just mentioned. I too want to thank and acknowledge attorney Kevin Shenkman for calling in. In my 25 years of law enforcement experience. I’ve never known an attorney to do that,” he said.

“However,” said Minikus, “a crime occurred here, and I think it is not only our obligation, but the majority of the city would expect us to conduct an investigation on this.”

“And I hope that everybody will be transparent, as we’ve been talking about so much here lately. Everybody wants transparency in what everybody thinks. But more importantly, is that this is yet another way that we exercise transparency here in the city. I am in full support of this investigation. And I look forward to seeing it conducted,” said the mayor pro-tem.

Marquez, who also denied having any role in leaking the information, said “my question is about the investigation. If the city hired an investigator, how would the individual be chosen and supervised? How would the information be shared? How would the process be fair, so it does not bias or politicize again, and do we want money wasted on a political deflection to buy time,” she asked?

“We cannot have decision-making carried out by one person,” said Marquez, directing it at the city manager. “I do not have confidence in anyone up here except for council member Burke.”

However, when it became clear that a majority of the Council was insistent on moving forward with an internal investigation, Burke again stepped back in.
“I was optimistic or hopeful that we could rethink things because clearly there’s some confusion about what happens here,” said Burke.

“I mean, the question I have for my colleagues is in light of the points I’ve raised, why shouldn’t we pause and try and gain a better understanding of the facts before taking drastic steps, like launching a divisive investigation are openly accusing the council members of breaking the law,” asked Burke?

In essence, he said the agenda item which, verbatim from the agenda read as follows, “direct the city manager and city attorney to investigate the disclosure of information from the closed session” was unworkable.
That’s impossible, suggested Burke, because they were in the room and should become suspects like the rest of the council and everyone in the room when the matter was discussed.
“We’ve already said that a limited number of people could have been the source of this information. And the plaintiff’s attorney just said that the council members were not

involved, yet we’re going to propose that the city manager and the city attorney are the ones who investigate this issue,” asked Burke?

“We can’t have a neutral investigation. If people who are subjects of the investigation are overseeing it,” he added.

“It’s my understanding that in Anaheim when the city conducted an investigation of the corruption scandal, they had to do two things. First, they had to send out an RFP to get an independent investigator. Second, they had to send out an additional RFP to get a neutral person to oversee the investigation. I believe it was a retired judge,” he said.

“As it’s become apparent, I am not as disturbed or alarmed by this information getting out as my colleagues. I think it shouldn’t have gotten out, but I don’t see mal intent I see a likely mistake. But if they are really serious about this, then we need both a neutral investigator and a neutral third party to oversee the investigation,” said Burke.

“If the city manager and the city attorney are the two people who could be a source of the information, we can’t allow them to oversee the investigation. So without a neutral third party, the investigation won’t have any integrity. I wouldn’t have been inclined to cooperate with such an investigation,” said Burke.

“So, I hope you will reconsider in general, but at the very least I’m asking we have to change the item so that it’s a neutral person overseeing the investigation, not one of the subjects of the investigation.”

Therefore, the Council agreed to strip both City Manager and City Attorney of any authority in dealing with the investigation and instructed staff to develop two (2) independent Requests for Proposals to develop the scope and nature of the investigation and then independently who will conduct the investigation.

In addition, the Council agreed that all information developed as part of the investigation be delivered directly to the Council, not the city manager or the city attorney.

The Council then voted 4-1 to authorize the investigation, with Burke voting against authorizing a loosely defined investigation that he suggested could become an exercise in futility that ironically results in exposing other information the city intended to keep secret.