attachment 1sep 22, 2020  · as is clear in attachment 1 to this letter, ms. ibarra can surely...

4
September 22, 2020 Council File 20-1103; 9/23/20 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 5; Objection to Misuse of Public Funds to Foot Attorney Bills for City Staffer Re: Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: The City Attorneys submission of a request for reimbursement of $12,185.60 in attorney fees on behalf of Principle City Planner Luciralia Ibarra "in connection with an interview requested by the Department of Justiceis ludicrous. The request is missing critical information for the public to weigh-in on how our tax dollars are being used - or misused as seems to be the case here. The City Attorneys office states they didnt represent Ms. Ibarra in the interview because "it was possible the employee and the City might not have aligned interests.When they later learned that the DOJ did not "anticipateMs. Ibarras further involvement in the DOJs investigations, theyve decided her outrageous legal fees should be covered by the public. (Did the DOJ "anticipateRaymond Chan or George Esparza to be implicated in the ongoing investigation?) We dont know who Ms. Ibarra retained, how many hours of work the attorney(s) did, or have any accounting whatsoever to understand why she needed to spend more than $12,000 to be represented. Theres no evidence that the City Controller reviewed the accounting. The agenda for todays meeting states that neither the CAO nor the CLA "have completed a financial analysisof the report. This amount seems excessive for an interview to just discuss the work she performed for the City. If Ms. Ibarra is the first to be interviewed by the DOJ’s ongoing investigation, she certainly wont be the last. Is the public expected to foot the bill for more attorney fees of City staffers after the City Attorneys office decides its "okay? It also seems hasty to reimburse Ms. Ibarra for her legal fees when the DOJ has yet to complete its investigation (if we are all correctly assuming that it involves charges against former Councilmember Huizar). If Ms Ibarra is later found to have "acted with malice, in bad faith, or outside the course and scope of her employment in matters related to the subject of the DOJs interviewas the City Attorneys office puts it, she will certainly cry poverty before repaying her debt to the public. As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed. (She can also afford not to get reimbursed, and shouldnt.) While City staffers are getting furloughed and residents and business owners are suffering lost incomes and renters are facing homelessness, this is no time for public funds to go toward something as frivolous as a City Planner getting reimbursed exorbitant legal fees to make sure shes covered for actions that may or may not have contributed to illegal activities. Sincerely, Veronica Resident, taxpayer, and registered voter in the City of Los Angeles

Upload: others

Post on 15-Oct-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: ATTACHMENT 1Sep 22, 2020  · As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed

September 22, 2020

Council File 20-1103; 9/23/20 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 5; Objection to Misuse of Public Funds to Foot Attorney Bills for City Staffer

Re:

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

The City Attorney’s submission of a request for reimbursement of $12,185.60 in attorney fees on behalf of Principle City Planner Luciralia Ibarra "in connection with an interview requested by the Department of Justice” is ludicrous. The request is missing critical information for the public to weigh-in on how our tax dollars are being used - or misused as seems to be the case here.

The City Attorney’s office states they didn’t represent Ms. Ibarra in the interview because "it was possible the employee and the City might not have aligned interests.” When they later learned that the DOJ did not "anticipate” Ms. Ibarra’s further involvement in the DOJ’s investigations, they’ve decided her outrageous legal fees should be covered by the public. (Did the DOJ "anticipate” Raymond Chan or George Esparza to be implicated in the ongoing investigation?)

We don’t know who Ms. Ibarra retained, how many hours of work the attorney(s) did, or have any accounting whatsoever to understand why she needed to spend more than $12,000 to be represented. There’s no evidence that the City Controller reviewed the accounting. The agenda for today’s meeting states that neither the CAO nor the CLA "have completed a financial analysis” of the report. This amount seems excessive for an interview to just discuss the work she performed for the City.

If Ms. Ibarra is the first to be interviewed by the DOJ’s ongoing investigation, she certainly won’t be the last. Is the public expected to foot the bill for more attorney fees of City staffers after the City Attorney’s office decides it’s "okay”? It also seems hasty to reimburse Ms. Ibarra for her legal fees when the DOJ has yet to complete its investigation (if we are all correctly assuming that it involves charges against former Councilmember Huizar). If Ms Ibarra is later found to have "acted with malice, in bad faith, or outside the course and scope of her employment in matters related to the subject of the DOJ’s interview” as the City Attorney’s office puts it, she will certainly cry poverty before repaying her debt to the public.

As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed. (She can also afford not to get reimbursed, and shouldn’t.) While City staffers are getting furloughed and residents and business owners are suffering lost incomes and renters are facing homelessness, this is no time for public funds to go toward something as frivolous as a City Planner getting reimbursed exorbitant legal fees to make sure she’s covered for actions that may or may not have contributed to illegal activities.

Sincerely,VeronicaResident, taxpayer, and registered voter in the City of Los Angeles

Page 2: ATTACHMENT 1Sep 22, 2020  · As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3: ATTACHMENT 1Sep 22, 2020  · As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed

Multiple records for Luciralia Ibarra} | Transparent California https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/los-angeles/luciralia-ibarra/

PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCHFirst Name Last Name

TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIACalifornia's largest public pay and pension database

.(/).

Stay updated by joining our mailing list! (/connect/)

Home (/) / Salaries

Multiple records ‘Luciralia Ibarra’This usually happens when a single employee works at multiple positions within an agency or an employee's name has been redacted for safety reasons (e.g., undercover law enforcement,

prison guard, etc.)

Overtime Other Total Total pay & benefits

Regular pay (?&s=- base)

benefitsName pay(?&s=-overtime)

payJob title (?&s=title)(?&s=name) (?&s=-

other)(?&s=-benefits)

(?&s=-total)

Luciralia Ibarra COUNCIL AIDE VII (/salaries/search /?q=COUNCIL%20AIDE%20VII)Los Angeles, 2019 f/salaries/2019/los-

angeles/)

(/salaries/2019/los-angeles/luciralia-ibarra/?pk=30246198)

$140,537.34 $0.00 $3,624.60 $58,376.00 $202,537.94

1 of 2 9/21/2020, 9:13 PM

Page 4: ATTACHMENT 1Sep 22, 2020  · As is clear in Attachment 1 to this letter, Ms. Ibarra can surely afford to wait until the DOJ has completed its investigation before getting reimbursed

Multiple records for Luciralia Ibarra} | Transparent California https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/los-angeles/luciralia-ibarra/

Overtime Other pay(?&s=- (?&s=-overtime) other)

Totalbenefits

Total pay & benefits

Regular pay (?&s=- base)

Name payJob title (?&s=title)(?&s=name) (?&s=-

benefits)(?&s=-total)

PRINCIPAL CITY PLANNER (/salaries /search

/2019/los-angeles /?q = PRINCIPAL%20CITY%20PLANNER) /luciralia-ibarra /?pk=30270014)

Luciralia Ibarra(/salaries

$14,060.16 $0.00 $1,198.78 $5,833.00 $21,091.94Los Angeles, 2019 (/salaries/2019/los-

anaeles/)

© 2020 Transparent CaliforniaAbout (/pages/about/) | Contact (/pages/contact/) | Blog (https://blog.transparentcalifornia.com/) | Disclaimer (/pages/disclaimer/) |

FAQ (/pages/faq/) | Donate (/donate/)

Records Management Made EasyAutomate Foia Requests, Secure Data, And Simplify Collaboration. Requ(

2 of 2 9/21/2020, 9:13 PM