In January four Chula Vista city council members appointed Steve Miesen to serve a two -year term for a seat vacated by Mary Salas when she became mayor. Miesen is the division manager of Republic Services, a sole source provider of trash services to the residents of Chula Vista.

At the April 14 city council meeting, Miesen had to recuse himself, on advice from the city attorney, from voting on an important planning issue—the Urban Core Specific Plan. Some people are beginning to wonder if the four city council members appointed a lame duck.

At every future turn it seems Miesen’s ability to contribute as a full member of the council will be monitored, researched, referred, or questioned.

Chris Shilling, a member of Chula Vista’s board of ethics, is concerned about the process by which Miesen was appointed.

Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government believe that the process used for selecting Miesen violated the Brown Act. They argue that the initial round of candidate selection and elimination took place in private without allowing the public to participate.

Coast Law Group LLLC and the Briggs Law Corporation, who are represent Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government, contend that because Miesen’s appointment “was inextricably linked to and based upon the prior unlawful vote, Councilmember Miesen’s appointment must also be declared null and void.”

To that end, on June 26 Coast Law and Briggs will seek to unseat Miesen. Shilling has emphasized the issue is with the process not with the person. Shilling points out that this same process is used to appoint members of the Planning Commission and that is why it is important to bring the process into accord with the Brown Act.

On April 14 Coast Law and Briggs sought a Temporary Restraining Order from Judge Katherine Bacal. The TRO would have prohibited Miesen from voting on tie-breaking decisions before the city council.

Charles Bird, hired by the city of Chula Vista as outside counsel, argued that the law does not allow the courts to prevent a public official from performing his or her duty.

Coast Law and Briggs assert that Miesen is not lawfully in possession of his office. They further argue that if, in the future, the council including Miesen votes on a project and then Miesen is unseated, it harms the public if the council has to go back and “unwind” the decision.

The judge did not grant the restraining order, nor did she seem to accede to the argument proffered by Bird. As she could not act on speculation, she told Coast Law Group that she would make the courtroom available to them if a true emergency arose. A true emergency would be a council vote that could potentially cause irrevocable harm to the residents.

On April 15, the Miesen appointment was taken up again by the Board of Ethics. The board had already dismissed two complaints against Miesen, but planned to consider sending a letter to the California Attorney General seeking an opinion on the inherent incompatibility of Meisen’s council seat and his position as division manager of Republic Services.

Jill Galvez, a candidate for city council in 2010, stressed that she was not seeking to unseat Miesen, rather petitioning the Ethics Board to send a letter to the Attorney General asking for an opinion on incompatibility. She pointed out that the finances of Republic Services and the city are intricately entwined. When the city raises the rates of trash collection, Republic Services makes more money and the city makes more money.

Galvez had sent a query on compatibility of office to the Attorney General in February. She told the members of the Ethics Board that the attorney generals office had responded and advised her to first “go through local channels.” She told the Ethic’s Board, “That’s why I’m here.”

Resident Russ Hall, a former city planner, questioned how Miesen, whom he described as the least qualified of the 44 candidates, rocketed to the top of the list. He asked the ethics board to “at the very least, clean up the process, the process is lousy.”

Several avenues of action suggested by members of the board were cut off either by advice from the city attorney or the outside attorney hired by the city, James Lough.

City attorney Glen Googins and deputy city attorney Simon Silva maintained throughout the meeting that they were satisfied that they had investigated all of the potential conflicts of interest, and that their decision that Miesen was legally eligible to hold office was correct. They advised the board that any query to the Attorney General would have to go through them.

A concerned Commissioner Esquer at one point said “Forget all the we can’t do this, we can’t do that —what can we do for the citizens of Chula Vista?”

In the end the tensions of the meeting fizzled into advising the council to continue to monitor Miesen’s votes with the assistance of the FPPC.

But the questions that haunt Miesen’s appointment won’t cease even if the legal challenges are quashed. In an April phone conversation, Googins was asked if the investigation into Miesen’s potential conflict of interest was concluded. Googins said the city will continue to look at Miesen’s votes on a by case-by-case basis.

He also said that his office would be seeking advice from the Fair Political Practice Commission on issues that will come before Miesen.

And at the April 15 Ethics Committee meeting Googin’s stated that his office is developing special protocol for Miesen so as to avoid conflict of interest. He reiterated that Miesen’s actions will be the subject of continued “special attention.” Near the end of the evening he also stated “we have not had this type of relationship with any other council member.”