Editorial:

Four years ago in 2008, community members felt that it was important to have a city attor-ney elected by a majority, to serve and be responsive to the community as an elected official. This newspaper supported that idea and Prop. Q passed with over 58% majority vote.

In 2010 Glen Googins became the first elected city attorney for Chula Vista.

Googins was not the choice of many of the same people that first proposed and supported an elected city attorney. Now, these same people are looking to change the terms of the original proposition and add on another layer of bureaucracy.
Prop C would reduce the salary of the city attorney, set term limits, and limit the authority of the city attorney. It would authorize the establishment of the office of Legislative Counsel to advise the City Council on its legislative duties and on conflict of interest issues.

The argument for this proposal starts out stating that “an elected city attorney should be a position of public service sacrificing personal gain for the public good.” While we laud this sentiment with a city council person, where there are no required qualifications to serve other than the ability to get one more vote than all other candidates, qualifications to serve as city attorney are specific and require the services an educated and qualified professional.

Salary for the city attorney is based on the medium income of city attorneys within six comparable cities. In 2008, this seemed reasonable and no circumstances have changed to warrant a compensation change.

The second change proposed by Prop C, to apply term limits, two four-year terms, is problematic at best. In the State of California, term limits have proven to be a disaster, and as such, have prompted a vote on Prop 28 that would expand on the number of years legislators can serve. We should learn from past mistakes and not hobble the city attorney with term limits. Again, the City Attorney is a professional position and when you get a good one in office, it would be counter-productive to see him leave after two terms. Accumulated wisdom is a good thing as City Attorney.

The last change proposed by Prop C is to create a Legislative Counsel, appointed by the City Council, which in effect would take some of the work away from the City Attorney and create yet another office. This change has been called for to eliminate a conflict of interest issue when complaints are filed against the City Attorney.

This Proposition doesn’t not project any cost for this new office, nor does it identify where the money would come from to pay for salaries and staffing. Before we vote on something we should have at least some idea of the cost.

In 2008 voters made their voices heard when they agreed with the terms of an elected city attorney. In 2010 once again the voters of the city made their choice for a city attorney. Let us allow this process time to work and let’s give the present city attorney a couple of terms at least before we decided the system needs fixing. To fix something that hasn’t proved itself broken doesn’t make sense.

We recommend a No Vote on Prop. C – City of Chula Vista.