20191015 Late CorrespondenceAGENDA ITEM:_ 1 __ 3~-
RECEIV~M: \,..cvt.
October 11, 2017 AND MADE PART OF THE R'l?ORD~ATTHE
From: Sharon Loveys couNCIL MEETING OF: 1.ol u; _ L5
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council oFFig~_QF THE CITY CLERK
Re: Agenda comments for the October 15, 2019 council meeting
Hello City Council,
I am writing this correspondence to address the statements made on page 9 and 1 0
of the City Council agenda for the meeting coming up on October 15, 2019 regarding
the source of the information for the $700,000 figure. My responses are bulleted:
When later asked, during her examination under oath, where she obtained this
confidential information, Ms. Loveys stated that she did not remember.
• This was a true statement given my memory at the time.
As her examination progressed, her attorney passed her a note telling Ms. Loveys to
state that she got the $700,000 number from then-City Attorney Dave Aleshire.
• Because, at the time, I did not have a clear memory regarding where the $700,000
figure came from, I did not repeat the statement.
Still later in her examination, Ms. Loveys testified that she had relied on an email with an
attachment sent to her by Mr. Aleshire (which she provided) in calculating the $700,000
number included in her appeals.
• At the time of my answer, I remember thinking that the data I received from Mr.
Aleshire may have been the source of the information. However, after reconstructing
the timeline, I see that the data provided to me by Mr. Aleshire was sent via email on
October 31, 2017 but in reviewing email correspondence between myself and my
attorney, I note that the $700,000 was referenced by my attorney on October 2, 2017.
I do not know his source for the information.
Ms. Loveys further testified that both of her appeals were written for her by her
attorney, Mr. Noel Weiss. Attorney Weiss, during his examination, stated he received
the $700,000 number from Ms. Loveys who, in turn had received that number "orally"
from Attorney Aleshire during a City Council meeting pre-dating her October appeal.
• I never stated that I received that number from Attorney Aleshire orally.
Ms. Landes, during her examination, adopted under oath a written statement that
she had previously submitted to the City Council, dated December 17, 2018. In that
statement Ms. Loveys is reported to have relayed to Ms. Landes, during an October
2017 conversation between the two of them, that it was Attorney Aleshire who
disclosed the amount of attorneys' fees from which Ms. Loveys was able to calculate
the $700,000 settlement demand made by the City on Green Hills.
• I propose that Ms. Landes is referring to the data that Mr. Aleshire provided for
me via email on October 31, 2017. Those data are the only values Mr. Aleshire
has ever provided for me-verbally, or in writing.
As far as how the $700,000 calculation was arrived at, you will need to speak with
my attorney.
This disclosure was made, according to Ms. Landes, during a conversation between
Attorney Aleshire and Ms. Loveys "during a break" at an October 3, 2017 City
Council meeting.
• I did not make that statement. To support this fact, I have an email dated
October 4, 2017 where I state: "David Aleshire was not there, the gal with the
curly hair took his place. "
However, Mr. Aleshire was not in attendance at either the October 2 or 3, 2017 City
Council meetings because he was in London on vacation. This is confirmed by his
personal calendar, the video recording of the October 2 and 3, 2017 City Council
meetings, and by the approved minutes of the City Council meetings, which indicate
that the Assistant City Attorney was in attendance at both of these meetings in place
of Mr. Aleshire.
• As noted above, I am (and was) well aware of Mr. Aleshire's absence from the
October 3, 2017 City Council meeting. Therefore, it does not makes sense that I
would state that I spoke with him that evening.
Respectfully,
Sharon Loveys
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 15, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
B
3
Description of Material
Correction to Attachment A (lnterwest Consulting Group, Inc.
Agreement)
Email exchange between Mayor Duhovic and C. J. "Kit" Ruona;
Email from Krista Johnson
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 14, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LA TE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191 015 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Subject: Late Correspondence
Attachments: Attachment A -lnterwest Long Form Professional Services agreement (1 0-15-2019).pdf
From: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:14PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Late Correspondence
Attached is a replacement per a Councilmember's correction below.
• Consent B -Make sure to fix the contract heading as it shows McGee Surveying Consulting but should say lnterwest.
Thank you.
Charles Eder, PE
Senior Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5282
1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into on October 15, 2019 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a California
municipal corporation ("City") and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., a Colorado Corporation
("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as "Party" or
"Parties."
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Section 2.44.070(A) of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code, the City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.
B. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or
"work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to
properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and
professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated
herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:36 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: RPV Election
Please make this Late Carr for item 3
Thank you
From: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:32 PM
To: Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: RPV Election
Hi Emily,
Please accept this email thread as Late Correspondence.
Thank you.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry V. Duhovic
MAYOR -City of Rancho Palos Verdes
jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov
City Hall:(310)544-5207
Cell :(310)502-8036
1
J.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WWY!I.J:tl.VCa.gQIL
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It
should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and
should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
From: cjruona @cox.net <cjruona @cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 7:39 AM
To: Jerry Duhovic
Subject: RE: RPV Election
Your honor-
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.
cjr
From: Jerry Duhovic <Jerrv.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 10:51 PM
To: cjruona@cox.net; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Mickey Radich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ken.delong@verizon.net; billpatton21@icloud.com;
davidkoch89@gmail.com; mrsrpv@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>;
bradley 4 rpv cc@earthlink.net; steve@electperestam.com
Cc: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; anneruona@cox.net; jmarckx@cox.net; Joan Barry
<itsthebarrys@gmail.com>; sandraide@cox.net; margemx@cox.net; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>;
rpvcrg@protonmail.com; shawn@bhhscp.com; paulmarcelino@aol.com; gvancans@terranea.com; dasork@sjf.org;
bill@pattonsite.com; wrsmith760@yahoo.com_; m_tanios@yahoo.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: RPV Election
Dear Kit1
Thank you for your email. It is encouraging to know that you are as outraged as
I am, along with many others in our community1 with respect to this type of
despicable, disgusting, distasteful and dirty politics, if you can even call it that.
It is more correctly described, as you put it, a "cowardly" attempt to influence
our elections, misstate the facts and demean, besmirch, and defame good
people that have served our community well, all under the cloak of anonymity. I
have heard from numerous residents voicing their concern and contempt for
this type of cowardly behavior.
Your analysis of the erroneous facts is right on point. As such, I will not revisit
them now. And your commentary with respect to Ken Dyda was spot on. It
doesn't matter which candidate(s) you support, this type of garbage is totally
2
unnecessary, unfair and just not right. Especially when it comes to Ken Dyda.
He bleeds RPV blue and green. What a disgrace. Whether you agree or disagree
with his positions, decisions or actions, this type of character assassination can
only be generated by a disturbed, hateful and spiteful individual(s) -those I
would consider the lowest of the low.
It will take good people, those with decency and a conscience, to stand up and
condemn this garbage if it is to be curtailed. For the fact that you initiated your
email, I consider you one of those individuals.
One point of fact I must share with you. The RPVCRG website came into
existence almost a year and a half ago now, sometime in mid-2018. City Staff
discovered that the owner and registrant of that website was BC Urban, a
company owned and operated by Brian Campbell.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns. My hope is for
better times with respect to this and future elections in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Regards,
Jerry
City Council -Please do not reply or reply all.
Jerry V. Duhovic
MAYOR-City of Rancho Palos Verdes
jerfY.duhovic@rpvca.gov
City Hall:(310)544-5207
Cell :(310)502-8036
3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WWW.,JPY.!:;il.9QY
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It
should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and
should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
From: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 1:36 PM
To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ken.delong@verizon.net;
billpatton21@icloud.com; david.koch89@gmail.com; mrsrpv@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>;
bradley 4 rpv cc@earthlink.net; steve@electperestam.com
Cc: Jerry Duhovic; John Cruikshank; anneruona@cox.net; jmarckx@cox.net; Joan Barry; sandraide@cox.net;
margemx@cox.net; Ken Dyda; rpvcrg@protonmail.com; shawn@bhhscp.com; paulmarcelino@aol.com;
gvancans@terranea.com; dasork@sjf.org; bill@pattonsite.com; wrsmith760@yahoo.com; mtanios@yahoo.com
Subject: RPV Election
Yesterday a Rancho Palos Verdes {RPV) resident forwarded me a disturbing unsolicited
e-mail that person had received from the e-mail address of rpvcrg@protonmail.com I
am including that address in my recipients of this e-mail. I have no idea who this is, if it
is an RPV resident, or simply some coward trying to effect our election behind the cloak
of anonymity. I will not enhance the exposure of the flier in the e-mail that was sent,
but I will describe its contents.
It begins by mocking & disparaging the age of Ken Dyda. The writer claims Dyda to be
in his 90's. This is untrue. I attended the candidate forum at the Palos Verdes
4
Interpretive Center (PVIC) & believe Dyda publicly announced his age there. A simple
public record check on the internet will confirm his age.
There is a Latin phrase used in common law "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." That is
if you are false in one of your facts, all of your facts should be considered false. This
maxim pertains to this entire cowardly e-mail.
It goes on that the outgoing RPV city manager Doug Willmore is rigging our upcoming
local election. Willmore is leaving RPV in a month to pursue another career. Why
would Willmore give a rip who is elected to the city council when he will no longer be
associated with RPV? The logical answer is that he does not care. While trying to make
this absurd rigging point the e-mail writer misspells the name of our mayor. The writer
is a real beauty!
The e-mail writer then claims that Dyda lost his train of thought during his opening
statement at the PVIC candidate forum. I was at that event. Perhaps the writer was
not. I cannot recall Dyda stumbling & remember walking away that evening feeling all
the candidates handled themselves pretty well. Anyone who puts himself in the arena
as a public figure spends a lot of time in front of a microphone & an occasional loss of
train of thought or miss peak is not uncommon. The only gaff I recall that evening is
that the moderator forgot to ask the candidates for their closing statements (that was
rectified) and he engaged the candidates in a petty trivia contest. However, I am sure
his time was volunteered & we should be thankful to him for his service.
The writer continues that over 50% of the RPV city staff have resigned over the last
four years & allude that it is due to Dyda & Willmore. I suspect this to be false based
on the writer's other untruths. Men & women leave their jobs every day for various
reasons. The writer has no idea why these employees sought employment elsewhere.
The writer then says that "we" have been unable to find any campaign workers
supporting Dyda in this election who supported him in the past. Perhaps that is
because if ANY former campaign workers who have deserted him were located it is a
select few. Based on Dyda's incumbency & his many years of service to the city I am
sure that he has no lack of supporters & campaign workers.
Let me be clear. I am not supporting Dyda in this election. I have voted for him in the
past, but this time I feel there are better candidates who represent my point of view on
5
how RPV should be run. However, Ken Dyda has my respect for what he has done for
our wonderful city. There is no living person who has meant more, done more &
dedicated more of his time to form RPV into what it is today. Whether I am going to
vote for him this election cycle or not is irrelevant. I admire the man for what he has
done & mud slinging from the shadows should be condemned.
At the last candidate forum at Fred Hesse Park an uncommon collegiality was shown
when more than one candidate stated how outstanding the entire field of candidates
is. I agree. I hope that every candidate & civic group publicly condemns this cowardice
form of campaigning & that the voters study the issues & make their choices based on
which of the candidates they feel will best lead our city forward. Your vote is
important!
C. J. "Kit" Ruona
Rancho Palos Verdes
6
From: Krista Johnson <kristamjohnson@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:15AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Krista Johnson <kristamjohnson@cox.net> <kristamjohnson@cox.net>
Subject: Concerned Resident on Oct 15 Agenda Items
To Mayor Duhovic and the RPV City Council-
I see the City of RPV has on its agenda Tuesday October 15, 2019 an item to discuss whether a lawsuit should be filed against a
city resident and former Mayor and councilmember.
• I feel having this discussion outside of a closed session regarding an individual is highly inappropriate, not prudent and
blatantly disrespectful given the contentious nature of the situation. There is absolutely no reason to have this
discussion in the open versus a closed door session.
• The City has traditionally always had lawsuit discussions in closed session and I am not clear why there is a deviation
from that process for this particular situation.
• In addition, the City should not be expending any more taxpayer dollars on investigations and lawsuits that haven't
uncovered substantiated evidence that serves the residents.
• To have this discussion in the open, shortly before the RPV City Council Election Nov 5, 2019 raises serious issues
regarding election integrity and processes for the city. This item should be in a closed door session or deferred to
after the municipal election for proprieties sake.
• Using legislative subpoenas to garner information from residents that may appear to be on the unpopular side of an
issue or concern is a very slippery slope to go down. It may fact, cause more issues and create a higher level of
distrust of local government than currently exists.
As you know, I ran for city council in 2017 and I am very involved in the community and I hear just about everything from every
side of the community and before I make a decision I weigh all of the facts and then consider the unintended consequences of
any decisions. I urge you to consider the same before you publicly proceed with a discussion of this nature on your agenda.
A couple other items to consider-as taxpaying residents, my husband and I need to know our tax dollars are being spent
prudently and effectively.
• You have several very large, costly projects in various stages and I would highly recommend and strongly suggest for
the unity of the city you put them on a ballot for a vote of the residents before proceeding down any predetermined
path.
• If you don't get this public support and provide all of the facts about the costs and benefits of the projects for the
residents, you will have a large community outcry on your hands that will be detrimental to the city.
Your service to the community is greatly appreciated and I commend you for your service to RPV, but please consider the
precedent you may be setting in moving forward in this manner.
Sincerely,
Krista Johnson
58 Avenida Corona
1 3.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2019
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 15, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
3 Emails from: Jeff Lewis; Bob Nelson; Letters from City Attorney
Wynder
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191015 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From: Emily Colborn
Sent:
To:
Friday, October 11, 2019 2:22 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 3 I Closed Session Investigation 1 Brian Campbell
Attachments: 20180711 -Response to Lewis July 5, 2018 letter.pdf; 2080503 PRA 14-day response
determination letter -K.DeLong SBrooks email lists and other .. pdf; 20181221 -Lewis to
Wynder.pdf; 20181004 -Recusal Letter.pdf; 20180330 -Lewis to Aleshire.pdf
Late Correspondence
From: Jeff Lewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 3 I Closed Session Investigation I Brian Campbell
Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council
I am litigation counsel for Brian Campbell. I am writing to you pertaining to agenda item 3 for your October 15,
2019 meeting pertaining to the City's failed closed session investigation and the threat of litigation against Brian
Campbell. I request that this email and my attachments to this email be included in the administrative record.
Legislative subpoenas and lawsuits should not be used a political tools or to further personal vendettas between
political opponents. I raise the following points for your consideration as you deliberate on this matter on
Tuesday evening:
1. The City accepted the City Attorney's recommendation to spend in excess of $45,00 on an
investigation into closed door leaks and found nothing other than the City Attorney is inept at
investigations. Isn't this lawsuit against Brian Campbell a similar waste of taxpayer funds? Hasn't the
City Attorney already demonstrated its incompetence as to the closed session leak investigation and
should the City authorize a further waste of taxpayer funds?
2. For the first time in its history, this City Council authorized the use of legislative subpoenas--
directed at the political opponents of the council. The subpoenas were also used to target a lawyer
who represented a party that sued the City, Noel Weiss. Should the City study this issue and enact
guidelines about whether and when to use legislative subpoenas in the future to ensure this abuse is
not repeated
3. The City typically hears matters in closed session before authorizing a lawsuit and then "reports out"
the result of that closed session in open session. For the matter of Brian Campbell, the City Council is
discussing the matter in open session on Tuesday. Do members of the City Council have a personal
reason for airing these allegations against Brian Campbell in public? When is the last time the City
Council held an open session discussion item on whether to file a lawsuit? Who made the decision as
to whether this topic would be discussed in closed session or open session? Does the decision to
conduct this report in public suggest a bias against Brian Campbell?
4. The City was originally scheduled to hear the report on this matter in June 2019 based on the
tentative agendas published earlier this year. The matter was delayed and the City has timed
the disclosure of its investigation into the closed session leaks to fall within 30 days of a city
council election. Is the current City Council or Attorney seeking to influence the outcome of
1
the election with the timing of this disclosure of its failed investigation? Should the timing of
future reports regarding former public officials be avoided this close to an election?
5. The City has previously insinuated that Brian Campbell leaked information from a closed session
meeting. Has the time come for the City to issue a retraction and apology to Brian Campbell?
6. As a matter of policy, do we want our council members authorizing lawsuits against former officials
under these conditions? Isn't this a slippery slope that can be abused to target political opponents?
7. If the City Council chooses to to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell, what City policy is served by
that objective?
8. Should the decision of whether to sue Brian Campbell be made by a council majority with only a few
weeks of service left and no voter accountability or should the next council majority make that
decision?
9. The City's basis for filing a lawsuit is a claim that Brian Campbell did not comply with Public
Records Act requests by third parties. Yet none of those third parties have sued the City and the time
to do so has lapsed. There has been no real harm incurred by the City except for the padded fee bills
ofthe City Attorney to "fix" a "problem" of its own creation.
10. The City wants Brian Campbell's email list. Is this really a legitimate basis for a lawsuit? Do future
council members wish to disclose their list? What is the chilling effect on public communications if
such lists are disclosable? What is the City trying to achieve with the lawsuit other than satiation of
personal animosity?
11. What is the City Attorney's budget for filing such a lawsuit and are there any grounds for the City to
recover attorney's fees spent on this project? In other words, if the City spends $200,000 to file a
lawsuit against Brian Campbell yet only recovers $100,000 from Brian Campbell, the City will suffer
a net loss of $100,000 is that in the City's best interests? Can the City Attorney assure the Council
with any certainty that the legal fees incurred by the City in its lawsuit will not exceed the recovery?
12. What are the prospects of Brian Campbell filing a counterclaim against the City and City Attorney?
13. The City Attorney claims that it has $130,000 in damages against Brian Campbell. On March 20,
2018, I presented any contrary evidence that suggests that the City Attorney's figure is not accurate.
See attached March 30,2018 email. For example, that $130,000 include the cost of the City Attorney
attending the deposition of Brian Campbell in the Green Hills litigation when the City was not a party
to that litigation. That $130,000 includes costs that have nothing to do with Brian Campbell. I sent the
City documentation demonstrating that $130,000 number is padded and the City has ignored that
evidence at the advice of the City Attorney. Why?
14. Brian Campbell filed a State Bar complaint against the City Attorney. Shouldn't the City Attorney
have recused itself in light of that complaint?
15. On July 11,2018, the City Attorney and I negotiated the contents of a supplemental declaration by
Brian Campbell. See attached July 11, 2018 letter from the City Attorney. The City Attorney advised
me in writing that "upon compliance with the foregoing, the City will deem your client to have
complied with the legislative subpoena." Brian Campbell signed the negotiated declaration and
thereafter the City Attorney inexplicably claimed that Brian Campbell failed to comply with the
subpoena. Why did the City Attorney say in writing on July 11, 2018 that it would deem the subpoena
complied with and thereafter change its position? Is there a personal animus between the City
Attorney and Brian Campbell that requires the City Attorney to recuse itself? Does that July 11, 2018
communication by the City Attorney give rise to an equitable indemnity claim by Brian Campbell
against the City and City Attorney?
16. On October 4, 2018, I made a demand on the City Attorney that the City Attorney recuse itself from
the closed session investigation. The City Attorney did not. Why not?
17. On October 4, 2018, I demanded that the City Subcommittee investigate the City Attorney regarding
closed session leaks. Why was this not done?
18. On October 4, 2018, I presented documents to the City outlining a conspiracy between the City
Attorney and Green Hills to deceive Sharon Loveys. Why was this allegation not investigated?
2
Please give these matters due consideration before you vote to open a Pandora's Box which will affect not only
Brian Campbell but all current and future council members. All of Mayor Campbell's rights are expressly
reserved.
Jeff Lewis
Jeff Lewis Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • E-mail: Jeff@Jefflewislaw.com
Web. Jefflewislaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
Certified Appellate Specialist
Certified by The State Bar of California
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
3
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES i RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
July 11,2018
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattomeys.com
(310) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL jeff(a{.jefflewislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (31 0) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
/>,WATTCF\NEYS.C0fv1
Subject: Mr. Campbell's Document Productions in Response to City Council
Legislative Subpoena; Your July 5, 2018 Letter
Counsel:
Thank you for your letter ofJuly 5, 2018. With respect, our notice of insufficiency could
not properly be construed as "requesting additional information" from your client. All of the
missing public records identified in our notice to you are encompassed in the topics identified in
that legislative subpoena.
We note that your letter identified an e-mail address, asccnt(Li)cox.net, not previously
known to the City and from which your client produced no public records in response to the
legislative subpoena. In light of the same it will be necessary for your client to supplement his
declaration to indicate that he neither sent nor received public records from or at this e-mail
address.
With respect to closed session memoranda sent to the City Council by the former City
Attorney, it will be necessary for your client to supplement his declaration to include a
representation that "he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and was not able
to locate the closed session memos the City provided him and [that] he ... affirm[s) that no
closed session memos were forwarded by Mr. Campbell to anyone." We are advised that there
exists such e-mails sent to your client at one or more of his "private" e-mail accounts of which
the City has knowledge. It is surprising, indeed, that he did not retain the same given other
communications between himself and the City Attorney which he has produced.
Next, it was anticipated that your client would attempt to invoke the City's responses to
the frivolous public records act requests from Mr. DeLong of May 17, 2018. There, of course, is
a fundamental difference between the DeLong requests and the Huang requests. That difference
is that we are informed that, using the bully pulpit of his office as Mayor, your client sent the
e-mail(s) identified in the Huang requests (and admitted in your letter) in his capacity as the
Mayor ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
01203.0032/487896.2
Jeffrey Lewis
July 11, 2018
Page 2
Mr. DeLong, on the other hand, sought only "campaign related" materials from Mayor
Brooks that "were not sent or received using any city account or address and [which] were
created and distributed using her personal email account." These purely political
communications are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council or the City for
that matter as defined in the California Public Records Act.
While it is true that the City, as a public body corporate and politic, disavowed the
content of your client's e-mail(s), that does not alter the fact that your client was using his office
as Mayor to circulate e-mail comments about Mr. Huang and, as such, the requested information
is a public record. Alternatively, if your client persists in his unfounded position that e-mails
responsive to the Huang public records requests (and incorporated into the City legislative
subpoena) are not public records, your client will need to supplement his declaration to state that
all e-mail(s) sent about Mr. Huang (and incorporated into the legislative subpoena) were sent in
his personal capacity outside the course and scope of his duties as Mayor of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
The City appreciates your client's willingness to supplement his declaration as noted at
page 5 of your July 5, 2018 letter with the following clarifying statements (new text in bold &
italics or deleted text in strikethrough):
"(A)(l)-(A)(2) Although Mr. Campbell has an email list it is not a public record
and, is therefore, not responsive to the subpoena for the reasons specified above.
(A)(3)-(12), (15) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could
locate.
(A)(13)-(14), (16)-(17), (19)-(23) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a
diligent search and reasonable inquiry and was not able to locate the responsive
documents.
(A)(18) As set forth in our April 30, 2018 letter to your office, certain email
communications between Mr. Campbell and this office were withheld and
identified on a privilege log based on attorney-client privilege.
(B)(1)(2),(5)(6) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could locate.
(C) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could locate.
01203.0032/487896.2
Jeffrey Lewis
July 11, 2018
Page 3
(D) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and was not able to locate the responsive documents."
Accordingly, upon compliance with the forgoing, the City will deem your client to have
complied with the legislative subpoena.
Copies:
01203.0032/487896.2
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
Very truly yours,
ttJitl~ w~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
CITY OF
Sent Via Electronic Email
May 17,2018
Mr. Ken Delong
ken.delong@verizon.net
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Re: Public Records Act Request Received via Email on April 23, 2018
Dear Mr. Delong:
This letter is in response to your request for public records to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
{"City"), received via email on April 23, 2018, pursuant to the California Public Records Act {CPRA)
{Government Code § 6250, et seq., hereinafter "PRA"), as discussed herein.
Your PRA request seeks various documents. Please refer to each item listed below for the City's
response to your request.
1. The list of email addresses receiving Susan Brooks' August 25,2015 email entitled: "Susan Brooks
launches re-election campaign".
2. The list of email addresses receiving Susan Brooks' November 10, 2011 email entitled: "We Won!
Thanks for Your Support."
CITY RESPONSE Items No. 1 and 2:
My office is advised by legal counsel that writings that relate to a political campaign are not
prepared, maintained, or used by the City, particularly given that such writings are subject to the
jurisdiction of the voters and are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. As
such, the requested documents do not constitute public records.
So far as my office can determine, Mayor Brooks' campaign related emails were not sent or received
using any city account or address, and were created and distributed using her personal email
account for or during one or more election campaigns. Campaign emails are neither necessary nor
required for a Councilmember to discharge her official duties, and campaign documents are neither
in the actual nor constructive possession of the City.
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
TEL. (310) 377-0660 I FAX (310) 377-9868 I EMAIL: s;)!y~I~.Lk@rPY.t:;?..gqy I lt!'!VW·XP\It:;?.,gQy
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17,2018
Page 2 of 5
Accordingly, your request Nos. 1 and 2 do not seek the production of public records within the
meaning of the California Public Records Act. See, also, the City's response to Item Nos. 5 & 6, below.
See, also, the City's response to Item No. 3, below.
3. The list of email addresses maintained by Susan Brooks as of April 2018 for the purpose of
communicating city business.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 3:
This request requires the subjective determination by this office as to the purpose for which Mayor
Brooks maintains email addresses on her personal email system(s) and is, therefore, beyond the
scope of the California Public Records Act. My office is advised by legal counsel that to qualify as a
public record, a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the people's business;
"communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental mentions of
agency business, generally will not constitute public records." City of San Jose v Superior
Court (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 608, 618. See Govt Code§ 6252(e); Braun v City of Taft (1984) 154 Cai.App.3d
332; San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 762.
Notably, records must not only relate to the public's business, but also must be "prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency." Thus, documents not prepared, owned, used, or
retained by public agency are not public records even though they may contain information relating
to conduct of the public's business. (Regents of Univ. of Cal. v Superior Court (2013) 222 Cai.App.4th
383.) "Whether the record is in the actual or constructive possession of a public official, the
requirement is still that the record be required by law to be kept by that official, or that it be
necessary or convenient to the discharge of his official duty."
A requestor "must establish that the files (1) qualify as public records and (2) were in the possession
of the [Agency]. 'Possession' in this context has been interpreted to mean both actual and
constructive possession. '[A]n agency has constructive possession of records if it has the right to
control the records, either directly or through another person." Based on the above, writings that
relate to a political campaign are not prepared, maintained, or used by the City, even if they are
about the public's business, do not qualify as public records.
All email addresses on City servers or City email system(s) are maintained by City personnel and not
under the exclusive control of any elected or appointed public official. Next, my office is advised by
legal counsel that the City has no obligation to inquire of the Mayor for what purpose(s) email
addresses are maintained by her on her personal email system(s). Accordingly, as framed, the City
has no documents which have designated as being "maintained by [Mayor] Brooks for the purpose
of communicating city business."
Indeed, my office is advised that to seek the items identified above constitutes an unlawful invasion
of Mayor Brooks' personal privacy. See, American Academy of Pediatrics v Lundgren (1997) 16
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17,2018
Page 3 of 5
Cal.4th 307; Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325; Britt v Superior Court (1978)
20 C3d 844; Wilson v Superior Court (1996) 51 Cai.App.4th 1136; Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974)
42 Cai.App.3d 645. See, also, the City response to your Item #6, below.
4. Copies of all communications between City Attorney Aleshire and RPV resident Michael Huang.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 4:
The City has documents responsive to this request. Paper copies of the same will be made available
to you upon payment of the statutorily required fees noted at the end of this response.
5. Reviewing RPV website, City Clerk pages, no longer posted on the Public Records Request (PRR)
logs for 2017 concerning the 85 or so Public Record Requests previously submitted by Michael
Huang to RPV. Also, there is no log for 2018 Public Record Requests posted under the Public
Records Request Folder.
CITY RESPONSE Item #5:
As noted above, the California Supreme Court defines a public record as (1) a writing, (2) with content
related to the conduct of the people's business, which is (3) prepared by, or (4) owned, used, or
retained by any state or local agency. City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) 2 Ca1.5th 608, 617. This
request appears to be a declarative statement and not a request for any public record. However, in
the spirit of public service and transparency, you are invited to visit http://www.rpvca.gov/227 /Public-
Records-Request to review the PRA request logs. The 2018 log has been uploaded to the web page.
Also, an up-to-date log is included in every Administrative Weekly Report and can be found by
visiting http://www. rpvca .gov /Archive.aspx? AM I D=85
6. Furthermore, it appears that RPV has not defined what is a Public Record?
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 6:
Like the item before it, this request appears to be a declarative statement and not a request for any
public record. My office is advised by legal counsel that the definition of what is a public record is
defined in state law, and not in local ordinance, as "any writing containing information relating to
the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency
regardless of physical form or characteristics." Govt Code§ 6252(e).
To qualify as a public record a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the
people's business; "communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental
mentions of agency business, generally will not constitute public records." City of San Jose, supra, 2
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17,2018
Page 4 of 5
Cal.5th at 618; Govt Code §6252(e); Braun v City of Taft (1984) 154 Cai.App.3d 332; San Gabriel
Tribune v Superior Court (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 762.
For example, records containing purely personal information unrelated to the conduct of an
agency's business are outside the scope of the Public Records Act. See San Gabriel Tribune, supra,
143 Cai.App.3d at 774. Also, documents that an agency does not actually or constructively possess
at the time of the request may not be subject to disclosure. See American Small Bus. League v U.S.
Small Bus. Admin. (9th Cir 2010) 623 F.3d 1052 (holding that records no longer under control of
agency are not public records).
7. Does an elected official (Councilman) lose his I her Constitutional rights when elected to a public
position?
8. What determines when a Councilman is conducting public business? What makes it public
business if a Councilman makes an inquiry to a member of another body concerning an issue
that RPV has no jurisdiction?
9. Why are elected officials not protected from harassment when they disagree with proponents
of issues where there is disagreement? For example, Mr. Huang was a vociferous anti Airbnb
advocate and Mr. Campbell believed that resident's rights were being ignored by anti Airbnb
advocates. Is it illegal to have a differing of opinion?
CITY RESPONSE Item Nos. 7, 8, and 9:
These requests seeks legal advice or opinion which this office and the Office of the City Attorney are
not authorized to provide. No public records are requested in this item.
10. The RPV Council has been derelict by not having better defined what is and what is not subject
to Public Records Requests.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 10:
This request seeks legal advice or opinion which this office and the Office of the City Attorney are
not authorized to provide. No public records are requested in this item. See, also City Response to
Item No. 6, above.
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17, 2018
Page 5 of 5
11. Please provide material in electronic format and not in paper format unless specifically
authorized.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 11:
Please remit payment in the amount of $13.80 with respect to 60 pages of responsive documents.
We find that this fulfills your request. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
our office at (310) 544-5217.
Sincerely,
~
Emily Colborn, MMC
City Clerk
cc: William W. Wynder, Esq.,
City Attorney
December 21, 2018
VIA E-MAIL (wwynder@awattorneys.com) AND CONFIRMED BY U.S.
MAIL
William W. Wynder
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245-4916
RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Subpoena
Dear Mr. Wynder,
We are in receipt of your letter of December 4, 2018 inquiring about
additional responsive documents to the legislative subpoena from former
council member, Brian Campbell. Did you receive my email of December 6,
2018 3:31p.m. asking: "Bill, I received a letter oftoday's date from your
office. Should I also be expecting a subpoena or is the letter the only request
that will be directed to Brian Campbell in the near future?" I did not receive
any response. Please let me know if your email address has changed or if
there is some technical problem with you receiving my emails.
With respect to the substance of your December 4, 2018 letter, please be
advised that Mr. Campbell has produced all public records that he has as
previously outlined and he has no additional documents to produce. Should
you elect to refer this matter to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, I
would ask that you include in your package to the District Attorney's office:
1. This letter.
2. My July 5, 2018 meet and confer letter over the scope of the legislative
subpoena and suggesting that Mr. Campbell sign a supplemental
declaration by way of compliance with the legislative subpoena.
3. Your July 11, 2018letter where you accepted my offer of a
supplemental declaration and stated that "upon compliance with the
foregoing, the City will deem your client to have complied with
the legislative subpoena."
4. My October 4, 2018letter to you requesting that your firm recuse itself
from investigating Brian Campbell.
p: 310.935.400"! f: 310.872,5389
GOt:] Deop Va!I(~Y Drive, Su;t8 200 i F-\o!ling Hill~~ E~~tate, CP.. 90274
JeffLewisLaw.com
Please advise if you have any further questions about this matter.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Lewis
P3ge 2 of 2
December 21, 2018
October 4, 2018
Ron. Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tern
Ron. Eric Alegria, Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: In reInvestigation of Unauthorized Disclosures
Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and Councilmember Alegria,
I am writing to you in your capacities as members of the City's subcommittee
for the investigation of unauthorized disclosures from closed door meetings of
the council. As you know, I am litigation counsel for former Mayor Brian
Campbell. He retained me to assist him in response to the City's failure to
provide him an attorney at a deposition in the Green Hills litigation and,
thereafter, to comply with a legislative subpoena served by the City. In the
course of that representation, I made a Public Records Act request to the City
and received the enclosed email exchange between Green Hills attorney,
Ellen Berkowitz, and the then-City Attorney David Aleshire. I am writing
this letter on behalf of former Mayor Campbell and other residents of the
City who have concerns about the City's transparency and handling of the
current investigation into leaks of closed-door meetings. I would urge you to
carefully review the entirety of the enclosed email exchange closely and make
your own judgments about the implication of the statements made therein.
The email is disturbing for the following reasons:
First, your subcommittee has been charged with investigating leaks from
closed door session meetings of the City Council. On November 2, 2017, 12:14
p.m., Dave Aleshire disclosed to Ms. Berkowitz confidential information
shared with the City Council in closed session. That is an unauthorized leak
that the City should investigate. On October 31, 2017, 6:19p.m. Mr. Aleshire
disclosed to Sharon Loveys a costs summary shared with the City Council in
closed session. That is also an unauthorized leak that the City should
investigate.
p: 3!0.935.400! f: 3!0.872.5:389
009 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 i Rolling Hii!G C'tale. CA. 90:21'4
JeffLewisLaw.com
Page 2 of4
October 4, 2018
Second, Sharon Loveys is a member of the public (albeit not a City resident).
She has in the past served Public Records Act requests on the City. The
enclosed exchange documents a tacit agreement between Mr. Aleshire and
Ms. Berkowitz to dupe Ms. Loveys about the subject matter of her Public
Records Act request -the true costs incurred by the City in the Green Hills
litigation. On October 31, 2017, Mr. Aleshire emailed Ms. Loveys a
spreadsheet and misled Ms. Loveys to conclude the spreadsheet was an
accurate summary of Green Hills related litigation costs. Mr. Aleshire
suggested there are "pages of bills supporting" the costs summary. Mr.
Aleshire's October 31, 2017 statement to Ms. Loveys about the accuracy of
the costs was a lie. Mr. Aleshire thereafter emailed Ms. Berkowitz on
November 2, 2017 and stated:
[Sharon Loveys] made a public records act request. By being
friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding
giving her actual bills which are disclosable once litigation is
concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have
been higher.!
(Emphasis added).
Third, the email chain reflects that Mr. Aleshire is the originator of the
(unfounded) accusation that former Mayor Brian Campbell leaked
information to Ms. Loveys. On November 2, 2017, Mr. Aleshire emailed Ms.
Berkowitz that Brian Campbell "may have told [Sharon Loveys] that .... "
There was no basis for that statement. To the contrary, by November 2, 2017,
the information at issue-the $700,000 that the City had incurred in Green
Hills related litigation, was a piece of public information and included in staff
reports made to the RPV Planning Commission. 2
Coupled with the foregoing, the California State Bar has opened an
investigation (State Bar Proceeding No. 18-0-16022) into Aleshire & Wynder,
1 The amount of litigation costs is significant with respect to the City's
transparency to its residents, the intense public interest surrounding the
manner of the approval of the Green Hills mortuary, the settlement of claims
between Ms. Loveys and the City and the obligations owed by Green Hills
under an indemnity agreement with the City.
2 On October 26, 2017, Sharon Loveys filed a written appeal to the planning
commission of a grading permit. The appeal included a reference to the
$700,000 figure. That October 26, 2017 appeal was thereafter included in
public staff reports.
Pogo 3 of 4
O<:tober 4, 2018
LLP over a complaint regarding Dave Aleshire's improper disclosure of
confidential communications to City Resident Michael Huang, Dave
Aleshire's breach of the duty of loyalty by siding with Green Hills against the
City's interests with respect to former Mayor Brian Campbell, duping both
Sharon Loveys and the RPV city council regarding the true costs of the Green
Hills litigation and other issues regarding Mr. Aleshire's handling of the
Green Hills litigation, indemnity agreement and Public Records Act requests.
Based on these developments, I'd ask you to consider the following requests:
1. The law firm of Aleshire & Wynder should recuse itself from any
further investigations into the leaks of Green Hills related closed
session items. That firm has no business investigating former Mayor
Campbell or anyone else for the allegation of leaks of closed session
information about Green Hills. At best, Mr. Aleshire is a witness and
the complaining party who originated this accusation. Additionally,
Mr. Aleshire himself improperly disclosed closed session materials on
October 31, 2017 and November 2, 2017 and is now the focus of an
investigation by the State Bar. In either event, to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety, Aleshire & Wynder should recuse itself.
The existence of an open State Bar investigation against Aleshire &
Wynder compels the conclusion that Aleshire & Wynder cannot offer a
neutral and dispassionate analysis of the evidence on the question of
leaks.
2. A neutral law firm should be hired to continue the investigation into
closed session leaks. If further legislative subpoenas are issued by the
City, a practice I personally and many in the community find
abhorrent, those subpoenas should be directed to Ms. Berkowitz and
Aleshire & Wynder. Those subpoenas should seek all communications
between those two law firms on the subject of the Green Hills
litigation.
3. The investigation should be broadened to include whether Mr. Aleshire
had sought and obtained City Council approval before making the
October 31, 2017 disclosure to Ms. Loveys and the November 2, 2017
disclosure to Berkowitz and if any RPV council members were
individually involved.
4. The subcommittee should examine how Ms. Loveys' Public Records Act
request was handled by the City, including the enclosed email
exchange and the subcommittee should report back to the full City
Council its findings on whether the City Attorney's concerted actions
with Green Hills and against the interests of Ms. Loveys was in the
City' best interests and if it is consistent with the law.
Page 4 of 4
October 4, 2018
Putting the legalities aside, the enclosed emails do not portray the City in a
positive light. After the City's actions in approving the Green Hills construction
that impacted Ms. Loveys' home, she deserved more than a concerted effort
between Mr. Aleshire and Ms. Berkowitz to deceive her. I look forward to your
prompt and written confirmation that Mr. Aleshire's firm has recused itself
from any further involvement in this matter.
cc: Susan Brooks (susan.brooks@rpvca.gov)
Encl.
John Cruikshank Gohn.cruikshankCa?rpvca.gov)
Ken Dyda (k~n,dyqQ@rnvrr~,gQy)
Noel Weiss, Esq. (noelweiss~l!ca.rr.eom)
Karl Olsen (kolson(ajcofolaw.com)
Enclosure
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Friday/ November 03 1 2017 7:19PM
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Doug Willmore
RE: Green Hills
Red Category/ Responsive
No-Those costs calculations are not confidential at this point. She asked for a summary of costs. This is in a form I've
already organized it. In fact, it really only shows costs since we came on board. If I hadn't given her this, and probably
satisfied her question, and if I went back over 3-4 years the summary would be far more.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:29PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Do you think there's any problem with the fact that you gave her an exhibit that was presented to Council in
closed session?
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
IJ GreenbergTraurig ! ,
From: Dave Aleshire [mai!to:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitzeCCilgtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmoreCCilrpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disclosable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
2
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an emai! I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost ofthat personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmastcr(~i)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
3
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Friday, November 03, 2017 4:28PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
Do you think there's any problem with the fact that you gave her an exhibit that was presented to Council in
closed session?
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
IJ GreenbergTraurig J
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [ mailto: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
4
II GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disclosable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [mail to: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitzc@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
II GreenbergTraurig l
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email! sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantia!. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
5
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31,2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost ofthat personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster.@.gtlaw .com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
6
From:
Sent:
To:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:31 PM
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
We have had the same concerns.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [mail to: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:14PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
That disclosure strikes me as fairly problematic. Information discussed in closed session should not be
provided to members of the public, particular members of the public that have taken (and continue to take)
positions adverse to the City.
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
GreenbergTraurig J
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze(Cilgtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmoreCCilrpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
7
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
I:JQt:k.QWjq:~§})g_~J!!Y:L.~QDJ.I WV>'W.:.R~.l!!Y.!. .•. c:;gm
~~ GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disc!osable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: perkowitze@gtlaw .com [ mai Ito: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
~~ GreenbergTraurig l
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
8
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost ofthat personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
9
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:13 PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
That disclosure strikes me as fairly problematic. Information discussed in closed session should not be
provided to members of the public, particular members of the public that have taken (and continue to take)
positions adverse to the City.
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
Qg!:_~QY.i)t~Q0).gtli!W,s;9..!J:L I Y.!Y./W_,gJJAW,.\=_91}!
IJ GreenbergTraurig ~
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brii'ln may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [ mailto: berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
10
~~ GreenbergTraurig l
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disdosable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@qtlqw.com [m_C;Jilto:berkowitz~@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berk()VfitL:e@gtli3Yf,C:.9_fTI._I www. gtlaw. com
I] GreenbergTraurig !
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actua! settlement amount was substantiaL I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
11
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board ofthe Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility {which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster(i/)gtlaw.corn, and do not use or disseminate such information.
12
From:
Sent:
To:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [mail to: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Pilrk East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disc!osable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
13
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount wns substnntial. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
14
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
15
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
!?fr.kowitze@gtlaw.com 1 W\I{W.gtlaw.com
li GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disc!osable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [mail to: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
16
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca 5. Burleson [mai!to:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email! sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantia!. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca 5. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
17
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at Q9Stmaster(tpgtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
18
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law Mail-Request for Retraction I Inaccurate Information Supplied to Daily Breeze and the City Council 10/11/19, 12:43 PM
Request for Retraction /Inaccurate Information Supplied to Daily Breeze and the
City Council
Jeff Lewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com> Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:51 PM
To: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, Valerie Osier <vosier@scng.com>
Dave,
I read with interest the Daily Breeze story that Brian Campbell cost RPV "nearly 90,000 in legal fees." I have also read
the staff report I hit piece you put together for Tuesday's city council discussion of this item. I hope the City Council will
check your math and look at your staff report. Attached please find an alternative version of your spreadsheet with
some notes by me. I have segregated approximately $24,000 in legal costs that you attribute to Brian Campbell that
have nothing to do with him. For example, the public records act request sent by me last year has nothing to do with
Brian Campbell -they have to do with the City's relationship with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. It also appears
that you have billed a lot of time relating to the City's October 2017 violation of the Brown Act and negotiation of a
settlement agreement of that violation and attributed that to Brian Campbell. As you may recall, the City convened an
illegal closed session meeting when Brian Campbell stepped outside to get his reading glasses. While I understand
why the City chose to settle the Brown Act litigation, attributing your time to settle that case to Brian Campbell is not
fair. If anything, the City Attorney present for that meeting should have counseled the acting mayor-not Brian -that its
actions were illegal.
I also note from the staff report that your staff spent thousands of dollars doing legal research and other acts to decide
not to represent Brian Campbell at his deposition noticed by Green Hills. Compared to the five hours of attorney time
to simply attend the deposition, these dollars seem like a waste.
I will conclude with observing that the City has incurred legal fees in response to the improper approval of a burial
structure spitting distance from residents of Lomita. Green Hills filed a lawsuit and sent the City public records act
requests and there has been discovery. The true cause of the city's legal fees was the decision to approve the burial
structure. Pinning this on Brian Campbell is not accurate or fair.
Now that I have seen your billing summaries, on behalf of Brian Campbell, I request that you personally, your law firm
and the City offer a written retraction of the following statement attributed to you in the Daily Breeze in its March 26,
2018: "City Attorney Dave Aleshire said Brian Campbell has cost the city $87,500 in legal fees because he refuses to
respond to multiple records requests dating back to 2016." I ask that you send that written retraction to me and the
Daily Breeze. I also ask that you notify your malpractice carrier of this potential claim. Finally, I ask that you preserve
all evidence bearing on this issue as litigation is quite likely.
Jeff Lewis
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • Dir. (310) 935-4002 • E-mail: Jeff@JeffLewislaw.com
Web. Jeftlewislaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
htt ps :/ /mail.goog le .com/mai 1/u/O?ik= 7e34c81 df6&view= pt&search= ... msg -f%3A 159640 8 58 77854 46 518&simpl =m sg -f%3A 1596408 58778 5446 518 Page 1 of 2
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law Mail -Request for Retraction I Inaccurate Information Supplied to Daily Breeze and the City Council 10/11/19, 12:43 PM
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of
this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
2 attachments
~ Pages from Agenda_Report-1.xlsx
29K
~.~"~ BC Agenda Report.pdf
,u 2439K
https ://rna il.goog le .com/mai 1/u/O?ik= 7e34c81 df6&view= pt&search = ... m sg -f%3A 1596408 58 778 5446 518&si m pi= msg -f%3A 15964 08587 7 8 5446 518 Page 2 of 2
OJA
OJA
OJA
EQG
EQG
JSA
JSA
JSA
JSA
JSA
CMB
EQG
EQG
OJA
OJA
CMB
JT
AEM
AEM
OJA
OJA
EOG
RB1
CMB
CMB
CMB
CMB
OJA
EQG
CMB
CMB
JSA
MWR
MWR
MWR
MWR
MWR
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
CAMPBELL RELATED PUBLIC
2/2/2018 87.50 (BROWN ACT LEWIS)
2/9/2018 35.00 (BROWN ACT-LEWIS)
2/8/2018 140.00 (CAMPBELL-LOGO)
2/2/2018 525.00 (CAMPBELL DEFENSE
2/2/2018 52.50 (CAMPBELL DEFENSE
2/21/2018 64.50 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2/14/2018 64.50 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2/14/2018 64.50 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2/22/2018 64.50 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2/21/2018 21.50 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
9/14/2016 66.00 (COUNCIL MEMBER PRA)
12/28/2017 129.00 (COUNCIL POLICY 46)
1/2/2018 236.50 (COUNCIL POLICY NO. 46)
1/5/2018 1,170.00 (COUNCIL PROCEDURES)
1/4/2018 385.00 (COUNCIL PROCEDURES)
5/16/2016 66.00 (COUNCILMEMBER PRA)
2/5/2018 43.00 (DAILY BREEZE/PV NEWS)
2/12/2018 192.50 (DEFENSE OF CAMPBELL
2/12/2018 420.00 (DEFENSE OF CAMPBELL
2/23/2018 150.50 (DEPOSITION)
2/16/2018 322.50 (DUTY TO DEFEND)
2/7/2018 17.50 (IMPROPER USE OF CITY
5/22/2017 130.00 (JEFF LEWIS PRA)
6/13/2016 181.50 (LADERA LINDA FIELDS)
6/14/2016 132.00 (LADERA LINDA)
6/10/2016 33.00 (LADERA LINDA)
9/6/2016 33.00 (LEWISPRA)
2/1/2018 430.00 (LITIGATION)
12/4/2017 35.00 (MEETING WITH DOUG
6/6/2016 "16.50 (PILOLLA PRA)
6/14/2016 33.00 (PILOLLA PRA)
12/21/2017 86.00 (PLANNING COMMISSION
4/6/2017 322.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4/7/2017 64.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4/5/2017 236.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4/12/2017 279.50 (PRAREQUEST-NOEL
4/13/2017 172.00 (PRA REQUEST-NOEL
I 0/2/2017 21.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
I 0/16/20 I 7 150.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
10/1112017 43.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
I 0/26/2017 817.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
12/6/2017 494.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
1116/2018 537.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
1126/2018 387.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
l/23/20 18 344.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
l/24/20 18 322.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/l/20 18 322.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/3/2018 258.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/1112018 688.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/15/2018 537.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/16/2018 774.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
'!
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
JT 10/14/2017
JT I 0/19/2017
JT 10/21/2017
JT I 0/24/2017
JT 10/20/2017
JT 11/13/2017
JT 11/16/2017
JT 11/17/2017
JT 11/21/2017
JT 11/24/2017
JT i 1/27/2017
JT 11/28/2017
JT 11/29/2017
JT 11/30/2017
JT 12/1/2017
JT 12/1/2017
JT 12/5/2017
JT 1/11/2018
JT 11/20/2017
RB1 12/14/2017
RB1 12/11/2017
RB1 12/8/2017
JT 12/14/2017
RB1 10/13/2017
JT 9/21/2017
JT 1/22/2018
JT 10/12/2017
JT 11/1/2017
JT 1/10/2018
OJA 2/7/2018
OJA 2/5/2018
OJA 2/8/2018
OJA 2/1/2018
OJA 2/6/2018
OJA 2/2/2018
JSA 2/23/2018
731.00
279.50
451.50
559.00
365.50
365.50
301.00
537.50
322.50
774.00
258.00
150.50
580.50
322.50
258.00
537.50
236.50
516.00
43.00
150.00
100.00
125.00
860.00
100.00
215.00
580.50
559.00
215.00
537.50
172.00
322.50
107.50
193.50
172.00
193.50
21.50
24 414.50
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
(SETTLEMENT LETTER)
(SETTI EMENT LETTER)
(SETTLEMENT)
(SETTLEMENT)
(SETTLEMENT)
(SETTLEMENT)
(DEPOSITION)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
From: Emily Colborn
Sent:
To:
Monday, October 14, 2019 1:41 PM
CityCierk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Council 10/15: Item 3: Late Correspondence
Nelson Late Corres Item 3 10:15 CC.pdf
Late Correspondence
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208 direct
(310) 544-5217 office
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 12:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council10/15: Item 3: Late Correspondence
Council, DCM Gabi, Interim CM Ara
The hard copy has the req'd 'as an individual' verbiage.
Was quite surprised at the the staff report for item 3, the lawsuit against Brian Campbell and, after much
deliberation and thought believe we should simply close this matter now; receive and file, thanks attys for
doing their job and call the next item. That is, your legacy doesn't have to be a court suit against a former
Mayor for something it seems the then acting Mayor also did but which was deemed perfectly fine!
Compromise! Close this door and don't open door #3.
I am providing hard copies for time stamping and inclusion in this meetings late correspondence.
Bob Nelson
1
'6.
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
RPV, CA 90275
LATE CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL MEETING 10/15/2019
ITEM #3: SUING EX-MAYOR BRIAN CAMPBELL
Council, DCM Gabi, Interim CM Ara
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s),
opinion(s ), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'). It should be interpreted
solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as
the official position, direction or decision of the City.
As one who received one of your legislative subpoenas and met with Atty Wynder, CM Willmore, eta!,
I have first-hand knowledge and experience with this item.
And, my careful, measured suggestion is we quietly close the books on this. 'Receive and
file' staff report. Close the door. Say your attorney did what was requested and, in your opinion,
has completed his statement of work. Add a "thank you, Dave Aleshire and William Wynder. Next
item."
Your investigation I was interrogated on was whether I or Brian had leaked closed session Council
information on Green Hills negotiations. I brought with me and submitted documents our Planning
Commission received on a Thursday as part of a Green Hills appeal to us for our Tuesday PC meeting.
These contained a negotiating number. We obviously could and did address the negotiation number the
following Tuesday. And, as soon as I produced the appellant's letter with that data we received Thursday
for our Tuesday meeting, my interrogation basically ended. Since there was no court reporter present, I
brought a witness re any future city quotes about my testimony. FYI one subpoenaed Commissioner
lawyered up with our past SeaBluffHOA RPV neighbor and past Los Angeles County District
Attorney Steve Cooley -of course, that Commissioner was never called in!
Your investigation then switched to one about emails. As you know, Planning Commissioners have heen
advised to delete all emails after 30 days, jic. This Council established a rule that any Committee
member, any Commissioner must use their city email for any city related communications 'so
these can quickly be accessed.' That has become the mostly usual case. As of this date, my city email
shows I have deleted 957 emails, 563 of which were junk emails. And this email will be part of my city
email record, though I will also send it out via normal channels.
Below, in the interest of civility and fairness, is past RPV Planning Commissioner and attorney
Jeff Lewis's thoughts on tonight's item. Every item usually has two sides and his is the other side
of your staff report. And, FYI, when I introduced Brian at the Long Point Debate Sept. 18 (the debate
where I was too 'biased' to be moderator and which you said you'd film and re-broadcast but
which you filmed but then refused to re-broadcast to our community, another RPV first!), it was
my pleasure to describe to our RPV audience in attendance Brian's achievements on their behalf:
"I'd like to now introduce our moderator for tonight. Its someone who has been both a candidate and
the moderator at this event multiple times in recent years.
* Our moderator has quite a history of national and community service, both elected, appointed and
as a volunteer:
Page .1. of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
* Has served as both the president of his own HOA association, the city-wide Council of
Homeowners Associations (CHOA) and for two years on the RPV General Plan Update
Committee.
* Has served over 20 years both domestically and overseas in both the US Army and Cal State
Guard where he is currently the Deputy Commander of the State Guard Special Operations
forces.
* He is a former RPV mayor and served eight years on the city council.
*Currently serves as an elected Trustee for the Palos Verdes Library District and has recently
won a second term as Trustee.
*And, most interestingly, just about this time a year ago he was in Kabul, Afghanistan, with his
troops. I'm sure he'll be willing to share some travel tips for any ofyou who are planning on going
there in the near future!
I'd like to welcome our distinguished moderator, the honorable Brian Campbell."
I'm not sure any lawsuit against Brian will be worth RPV citizen money, our atty time, risk of Council
embarrassment at the end or to even be part of this Council's legacy. Think compromise: do you really
want to go out with this as some ofyour baggage for our next Council's consideration? You
might remember, when some of you first came on board, your early meetings cancelled many of the prior
Council's last-minute motions.
The decision is up to you -again -you might consider 'receive and file' and close the door. Of
course, you can sound the alarm and leave future legal maneuvering to the incoming Council
and let their thought processes judge the value of suing past Mayors.
Bob Nelson
For readers, here is the other side of this item:
From: JeffLewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com>
To: those copied
Sent: Fri, Oct 11, 2019 12:06 pm
Subject: Tuesday Evening's RPV City Council Meeting, Item 3
Friends,
I am alerting you to a matter coming up for discussion at the Tuesday October 15 7:00 meeting ofthe
RPV City Council. Items 1 and 2 of the agenda concern the construction of a new civic center for which
I have no strong opinion. Item 3 of the agenda ... pertains to: 1) the outcome of the City's use of
legislative subpoenas, depositions and other tactics to investigate an alleged leak of closed session
materials; and 2) whether the city should file a lawsuit against former Mayor Brian Campbell.
As to the closed session matter, the City spent in excess of $45,000 dollars to investigate the public and
found absolutely nothing. They have nothing to show for that shameful waste of money and residents,
who now feel mistrustful of government.
As for the latter issue, the gist of the City's complaint against Brian is they feel he should have
turned over an email list he used because, per the City Attorney, his email list is a public
record. However, my office has taken the position that the email list is private and not a public record.
To test this matter, a citizen of our community made a public records act request for the then-mayor's
Page 2 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
email list that was used to communicate with the public. The City Attorney took the position that the
then mayor's email list is not a public record and refused to produce it. Therefore, Brian
Campbell is being singled out for personal reasons. The City proposes to spend taxpayer money to
go after Brian Campbell in a new lawsuit as part of a personal vendetta by sitting council
members that do not like Brian Campbell. Some background materials regarding the dispute between
the City and Brian Campbell are attached. If you have strong feelings on this matter about whether the
City should send legislative subpoenas to its residents and file lawsuits against former officials, I would
encourage you to to go to the October 15 meeting and make your voice heard. Alternatively, you can
send an email to the city council regarding this matter at: -~~"'"-"''~'~"""'-'·::;""''--','
Legislative subpoenas and lawsuits should not be used a political tools or to further personal
vendettas. If you agree, below are some points that the public could raise in emails or in person if
they felt agreement with these points:
1. The City accepted the City Attorney's recommendation to spend in excess of $45,000 on an
investigation into closed door leaks and found nothing other than the City Attorney is inept at
investigations. Isn't this lawsuit against Brian Campbell a similar waste of taxpayer funds? Hasn't
the City Attorney demonstrated its incompetence as to the closed session leak investigation?
2. For the first time in its history, this City Council authorized the use of legislative subpoenas
--directed at the political opponents of the council. The subpoenas were also used to target a
lawyer who represented a party that sued the City, Noel Weiss. Should the City study this issue
and enact guidelines about whether and when to use legislative subpoenas in the future to ensure
this abuse is not repeated
3. The City typically hears matters in closed session before authorizing a lawsuit and then "reports
out" the result of that closed session in open session. For the matter ofBrian Campbell, the City
Council is discussing the matter in open session. Do members of the City Council have a
personal reason for airing these allegations against Brian Campbell in public? When is the last
time the City Council held an open session discussion item on whether to file a lawsuit? Who
made the decision as to whether this topic would be discussed in closed session or open session?
4. The City was originally scheduled to hear the report on this matter in June 2019 based on the
tentative agendas published earlier this year. The matter was delayed and the City has timed the
disclosure of its investigation into the closed session leaks to fall within 30 days of a city
council election. Is the current City Council or Attorney seeking to influence the outcome
of the election with the timing of this disclosure of its failed investigation? Should the timing of
future reports regarding former public officials be avoided this close to an election?
5. The City has previously insinuated that Brian Campbell leaked information from a closed
session meeting. Has the time come for the City to issue a retraction and apologize to Brian
Campbell?
6. As a matter of policy, do we want our council members authorizing lawsuits against former
officials under these conditions? Isn't this a slippery slope that can be abused to target
political opponents?
7. If the City Council chooses to to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell, what City policy is
served by that objective?
8. Should the decision of whether to sue Brian Campbell be made by a council majority with only a
few weeks of service left and no voter accountability or should the next council majority make
that decision?
Page 3 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
9. The City's basis for filing a lawsuit is a claim that Brian Campbell did not comply with public
records act requests by third parties. Yet none of those third parties have sued the city and there
is no real harm to the city for the claimed misconduct.
10. The City wants Brian Campbell's email list. Is this really a legitimate basis for a lawsuit?
Do future council members wish to disclose their list? What is the chilling effect on public
communications if such lists are disclosable?
11. What is the City Attorney's budget for filing such a lawsuit and are there any grounds for the
City to recover attorney's fees spent on this project?
12. If the City spends $200,000 to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell yet only recovers $100,000
is that in the City's best interests?
13. What are the prospects of Brian Campbell filing a counterclaim against the City and City
Attorney?
14. The City Attorney claims that it has $130,000 in damages against Brian Campbell. Has Jeff
Lewis presented any contrary evidence that suggests that number is not accurate? For
example, does that $130,000 include the cost of the City Attorney attending the deposition
of Brian Campbell in the Green Hills litigation when the City was not a party to that
litigation?
15. Brian Campbell filed a State Bar complaint against the City Attorney. Shouldn't the City
Attorney have recused itself in light of that complaint?
16. On July 11,2018, the City Attorney and Jeff Lewis negotiated the contents of a
supplemental declaration by Brian Campbell and noon July 11, 2018 the City Attorney
advised Jeff Lewis in writing that "upon compliance with the foregoing, the City will deem
your client to have complied with the legislative subpoena." Brian Campbell signed the
negotiated declaration and thereafter the City Attorney inexplicably claimed that Brian Campbell
failed to comply with the subpoena. Why did the City Attorney say in writing on July 11,
2018 that it would deem the subpoena complied with and thereafter change its position? Is
there a personal animus between the City Attorney and Brian Campbell that requires the City
Attorney to recuse itself?
17. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis made a demand on the City Attorney that the City
Attorney recuse itself from the closed session investigation. The City Attorney did not.
Why?
18. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis demanded that the City Subcommittee investigate
the City Attorney regarding closed session leaks. Why was this not done?
19. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis presented documents to the City outlining a
conspiracy between the City Attorney and Green Hills to deceive Sharon Loveys. Why was
this allegation not investigated?
p.s. full disclosure, I am litigation counsel for and friends with Brian Campbell. I do have a bias toward
Brian. Please read the attached and make your own decision. (Not attached: Contact Jeff for copies.)
Thank you.
Jeff Lewis
Jeff Lewis Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • E-mail: Jeff@Jefflewislaw.com
Web. Jefflewislaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
Certified Appellate Specialist
Certified by The State Bar of California
Page 4 of 4
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
William W. Wynder
W>Nynder@awattorneys.com
(31 0) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
December 22, 20 18
SENT VIA E-MAIL jeff(a!jcfflewisiaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
p (310) 527-6660
F (31 0) 532-7395
AWATTOI'iNLYS.COM
Subject: Mr. Campbell's Document Productions in Response to City Council
Legislative Subpoena; Material Misstatement(s) ofFact Under Oath; Your
Letter ofDecember 21 2018
Counsel:
Your letter of December 21, 2018 was received electronically after our office closed for
the Christmas Holiday break. However, once curious observation in your letter merits a brief
response. No letter of "deemed compliance" can be construed as an acceptance of the truth of
the matters set forth in your client's declarations. In fact, your letter does not dispute, because
you cannot, that your client has made material false statements, under oath, in his declaration (as
demonstrated by the very documents he produced in response to the same).
As a former public official, your client owed the highest duty of honesty to the residents
of Rancho Palos Verdes. It is now clear that he has breached that duty and either made material
misstatements to his City Council colleagues or made material misstatements, under oath, in
response to the City's legislative subpoena. Simply ignoring these demonstrated inconsistencies
on the grounds of a "deemed compliance" letter will be unavailing.'
We reiterate, your client cannot have it both ways -he cannot state to the then City
Attorney and his former Council colleagues that his Huang e-mails were within his authority as
Mayor (in order to assure himself legal representation in the event Mr. Huang might sue him for
defamation), only to later claim that these same e-mails are not public records (and need not be
produced) because he sent them out in his "personal capacity." His contradictory positions are
mutually exclusive from one another!
Ill
Ill
Your October 4, 2018 letter is utterly irrelevant to your client's material misstatements.
01203.0001/526411.1
'?>.
Jeffrey Lewis
December 22, 2018
Page 2
Your client indeed has public records in his possession, custody, or under his control
which, for the second time now, through your office, he is refusing to produce. We shall take
such action(s) as the City Council deems appropriate consistent with the requirements of law.
Copies:
01203.0001/526411.1
(v/official city e-mail only)
City Council Ad Hoc Committee
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
Very truly yours, w £11~ u)'ffV'~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES! RIVERSIDE l CENTRAL VALLEY
February 12,2019
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(31 0) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL jeff(a{icfflewislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (31 0) 527-6660
F (31 0) 532-7395
AWAfTCI::iNLY~o.COM
Subject: Mr. Campbell's Second Supplemental Declaration; February 5, 2019
Counsel:
We have completed our initial review ofyour client's Second Supplemental Declaration,
dated February 5, 2019, and deem the same non responsive to the City's legislative subpoena
approved by the City Council at its December 18, 2018 meeting.' For the reasons that will
follow, the same must be withdrawn and a new, responsive, declaration issued or we shall
recommend that the City Council treat the same as a contempt of the subpoena.
First, you seem to think that the City Council can only issue one legislative subpoena and
that somehow my letter to you of July 11, 2018 waived the right of the legislative body to issue
any new subpoena(s). Your client is, of course, wrong as a matter of law. Moreover, the
subpoena was issued to obtained his yet-again tardy compliance with a public records act request
propounded to the City after July 11, 2018; on August 4, 2018 to be precise.
Second, your client's declaration is largely a repetition of an earlier declaration and
attaching, yet again, your contrived political dialectic on conflicts of interest. Paragraph Nos.
3(a) -(g), and 3(h)-(i) are non-responsive to the legislative subpoena and must be stricken.
Paragraph No. 6 is non-responsive to the legislative subpoena and also must be stricken. Lastly,
Paragraph No. 7 is non-responsive to the subpoena and must also be stricken. These paragraphs
having utterly nothing to do with the documents requested in the legislative subpoena.
Nowhere is this more evident than his Paragraph No. 7. The City's legislative subpoena
which was served on your client sought "all emails on Mr. Campbell's personal electronic
devises responsive to Ms. Tracy Burn's October 4, 2018" Public Records Act request. Your
Your client's declaration stating the Council "issued" the legislative declaration on
December 18, 2018 is, of course, incorrect. The Council authorized the issuance of the
subpoena on December 18, 2018 and directed the Mayor and Clerk to issue the same. We
waited to serve the same on your client until the necessary signatures were obtained over the
busy Holiday season.
01203.0032/534564.1
Jeffrey Lewis
February 12, 2019
Page 2
client's Paragraph No. 7 purports to incorporate your letter of October 4, 2018, which alludes to
"the investigation of unauthorized disclosures from closed door meetings of the council." There
is nothing in that subpoena that even hints at any investigation referenced in your October, 2018
letter, incorporated by reference into Paragraph No. 7 of your clients declaration and the same
must be stricken.2
Finally, we reiterate for the third time, your client cannot have it both ways -he cannot
state to the then City Attorney and his former Council colleagues that his Huang e-mails were
sent within his authority as Mayor (in order to assure himself legal representation in the event
Mr. Huang might sue him for defamation), only to later claim (in two declarations now) that
these same e-mails are not public records (and need not be produced) because he sent them out in
his "personal capacity." His contradictory positions are mutually exclusive from one another!
Accordingly, your client is afforded fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this
letter to formally withdraw his Second Supplemental Declaration, dated February 5, 2019, and
issue a declaration responsive to the City's legislative subpoena or we will recommend that the
City Council consider referring the same to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for initiation
of contempt proceedings.
Your client's immediate attention to this matter is now required.
Copies:
Very truly yours,
WMI'tt~ t4~~~\
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
(vi official city e-mail w/ enclosure of Supplemental Declaration)
City Council Ad Hoc Committee
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
2 We note, with amusement, your client's belated admission that he filed a complaint with the
California State Bar in Paragraph No. 7 of his declaration. We ferreted out your client's
clandestine efforts to "smear" our firm and Mr. Aleshire long ago thanks to a sloppy job of
redaction in his web site postings and staffs' identification of your client's company's domain
registrant status. Nothing quite like a confession after one has already been caught.
01203.0032/534564.1