The following excerpt is part of a February 11th story on the Patch website written by Khari :
"In his Feb. 6 letter to City Attorney Jennifer Lyon, Van de Water asked if a conflict of interest existed for the mayor to negotiate a financial agreement between SANDAG and the city? Such an agreement was signed last month.
The mayor sits on the SANDAG board and receives roughly $10,000 a year to act as the board’s vice chair.
State law requires that a public official with a financial interest in an issue disqualify himself or herself from a government decision.
Councilman Ed Spriggs recused himself from discussion of sand replenishment impact when the topic was first discussed at Jan. 23, so why shouldn’t the mayor? Van de Water wrote.
“I believe that Mayor Janney should be recused from any discussion on that agenda item as well,” Van de Water said.
State law says the mayor is not violating conflict of interest, City Atorney Lyon said in a reply a week later.
“Under the Political Reform Act, income from a public entity is exempt from the definition of ‘income,’ and therefore does not constitute a disqualifying economic interest,” she said. “Mayor Janney’s position on the SANDAG board is similar to the positions of other elected officials who serve on such regional boards.”
_______________________________
So here's my question for the ethically challenged and highly overpaid /appointed/ not elected/ City Attorney; Jennifer Lyon....or as I have grown to affectionately call her : "Lying Lyon"
If money from a public agency is exempt from being called income???.....would that also mean that you interpret that Mr. Janney would not owe any taxes on that money???...since it's not subject to the definition of "income" in your fantasy version of the law?
I doubt you would even know what a conflict of interest is any more and since you obviously provide cover for illegal and unethical acts by city officials, it's probably high time that you quit accepting public money for your services. Perhaps the individual council members and staff should pay for your services out of their own pockets and the people / citizens of Imperial Beach could retain or elect a real City Attorney that might represent their best interests instead of circumvent and bastardize the 3 branch style of Constitutional Government the Constitution , Federal and State; and the Municipal Code used to provide.
If the city attorney thinks $10k is not income....then she also thinks it's not taxable...and has shown her true colors. We don't want your legal advice anymore. You are delusional or the system is so corrupted that you can actually get away with stuff like this???.....Which you have been for a number of years already.
City Staff is out of control. Council is out of control and they are all in full blown denial and damage control. Time to take the keys away. Time for the grownups to take their town back.
_____________________________________________
The recent response (Agenda Item 6.1) to the Grand Jury makes a mockery of the court order. In the "improperly submitted and plagerized response" a statement was made that the Civil Grand Jury has no power to make anyone do anything. Perhaps they mis-calculated what the order said. I believe the order was signed by a Superior Court Judge and IT IS THE JUDGE WHO ORDERED THE RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT....and not the Grand Jury! The order said the Mayor was to respond. It said the Council was to respond. It said the City Manager was to respond. It didn't say they should hire a ringer to do their homework assignment for them. The presiding judge should be holding the Mayor, Councilmembers and former City Manager in Contempt for thumbing their noses at '
"HIS ORDER".....not the Grand Jury's order.
And if the judge is not holding them in contempt....WHY NOT ?
Who might try to influence the outcome?
Will Imperial Beach Civic Leaders Present and Past be given a clean slate or are there still other investigations that might still become public?
The City has defied the Grand Jury regarding changing some journal entrys. Maybe that was a nice way to not be accused of Fraud. If they don't make the suggested changes...then perhaps the City/ RDA did commit Fraud?
HOW ABOUT A COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT?
As much as the Mayor, Council and Staff want this to all go away and everything is just wonderful and every penny has been spent wisely.......I THINK.........NOT SO MUCH!
