Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/03/2022 04:03:59 PM.
30-2022-01273424-CU-WM-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk.
1 BROWER LAW GROUP, APC
Lee K. Fink (SBN 216293)
2 Lee@BrowerLawGroup.com
23601 Moulton Parkway, Suite 220
3 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Telephone: (949) 668-0825
4
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRETT MURDOCK
5 Brett M. Murdock (SBN 281816)
brett@murdocklaw.com
6 711 E. Imperial Hwy. Suite 201
Brea, CA 92821
7 Telephone: (714) 582-2217
Facsimile: (714) 582-2227
8
Attorneys for Petitioner
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF ORANGE
12
13 JOHN BRISCOE, Case No.
14 Petitioner, Assigned for all Purposes to
Hon.
15 v.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
16 ROBIN ESTANISLAU, Huntington Beach City
Clerk; BOB PAGE, Orange County Registrar of IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
17 Voters, Election Law Matter Entitled to Calendar
Preference (Code Civ. Proc., § 35; Elections
18 Respondents. Code, § 13314(a)(3)
19 Action filed: August 4, 2022
ERIK PETERSON,
20
Real Party in Interest.
21
22
23 Petitioner JOHN BRISCOE petitions this court for an alternative writ of mandate and a
24 peremptory writ of mandate, directed to Respondents ROBIN ESTANISLAU, Huntington Beach
25 City Clerk and BOB PAGE, Orange County Registrar of Voters, and by this verified petition
26 alleges:
27
28
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 SUMMARY OF THE CASE
2 1. By a 6-1 vote, the Huntington Beach City Council placed a measure on the
3 November 2022 General Election ballot to amend the City Charter and clarify the role of the City
4 Council and the City Attorney when it comes to handling legal matters, consistent with the rules of
5 professional conduct (“Charter Amendment Measure 3” or “Measure 3”). Pursuant to Section 9282
6 of the Elections Code, the City Council designated the dissenting councilmember, Real Party in
7 Interest ERIK PETERSON (“RPI”), to write the argument opposing Measure 3 and the rebuttal to
8 the argument in favor of Measure 3. On July 25, 2022, RPI submitted the Rebuttal to Argument in
9 Favor of Charter Amendment Measure 3 (the “Rebuttal Argument”) to the City Clerk for inclusion
10 in the Voters Pamphlet. The Rebuttal Argument contains numerous false and misleading
11 statements, irrelevant matter, and improper attacks on the Councilmembers designated to write the
12 supporting argument. Petitioner accordingly requests that the Court order the City Clerk and the
13 Registrar of Voters to remove these false, misleading, and inappropriate arguments.
14 PARTIES
15 2. Petitioner JOHN BRISCOE is a registered voter and resident of the City of
16 Huntington Beach (the “City”).
17 3. Respondent ROBIN ESTANISLAU is now and was at all times herein the City
18 Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach. She is the elections official of the City of Huntington Beach
19 and charged with responsibility for preparing the Voters Pamphlet for voters in Huntington Beach,
20 which includes the arguments and rebuttal arguments for city measures such as Measure 3. There
21 is a general municipal election to be held November 8, 2022, in the City of Huntington Beach,
22 which will include Measure 3.
23 4. Respondent BOB PAGE is now and was at all times herein the Registrar of Voters
24 for the County of Orange. He is the elections official of the County of Orange and charged with
25 responsibility for preparing the Voters Pamphlet for the County of Orange. Pursuant to Resolutions
26 2022-39 and 2022-40 of the Huntington Beach City Council, the general municipal election in
27 Huntington Beach is consolidated with the statewide general election, and the City Clerk was
28 directed to and is coordinating with the Registrar of Voters to provide all election materials to voters
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 in Huntington Beach, including the Voters Pamphlet, which includes the arguments and rebuttal
2 arguments for city measures such as Measure 3. There is a general municipal election to be held
3 November 8, 2022, in the City of Huntington Beach, which will include Measure 3.
4 5. Real party in interest ERIK PETERSON, is the author of the Rebuttal Argument and
5 is therefore a real party in interest pursuant to Section 9295(b)(3) of the Elections Code.
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Petition for Writ of Mandate)
8 6. Petitioner respectfully requests that this court issue an alternative writ of mandate,
9 and then a peremptory writ of mandate, or an injunction, commanding Respondent to delete the
10 Rebuttal Argument or, in the alternative, to delete from the Rebuttal Argument the following
11 statements:
12 a. Delete all references to Councilmembers Bolton and Kalmick;
13 b. Delete all text and references to “NOT licensed attorneys”;
14 c. Delete the text “PROVE this is a POWER-GRAB to give City Council MORE
15 POWER to hire outside attorneys - BYPASSING the voters’ City Attorney”;
16 d. Delete the text: “INDEPENDENCE of the City Attorney”;
17 e. Delete the text: “This Amendment gives MORE power to City Council to secretly
18 hire attorneys behind closed-doors, hidden from voters”;
19 f. Delete the text: “In 2021, City Council secretly and ILLEGALLY hired (violation
20 of Section 309, City Charter)”;
21 g. Delete the text: “lapdog attorney Craig Steele, who is a progressive POLITICAL
22 activist”;
23 h. Delete the text: “favorite of LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND Councilmember
24 Kalmick”;
25 i. Delete the text: “City Council secretly paid Steele $50,000 of taxpayer money with
26 no contract”;
27 j. Delete the text: “a highly political body of non-lawyers”;
28
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 k. Delete the text: “Although highly critical of Mr. Gates, non-attorneys
2 Bolton/Kalmick”;
3 l. Delete the text: “make a number of false claims against Mr. Gates, which are not
4 true.”
5 7. A copy of the Rebuttal Argument is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the
6 Rebuttal Argument with the provisions that Petitioner seeks to have deleted is attached hereto as
7 Exhibit B.
8 8. Section 9295 of the Elections Code provides for a review period which the
9 arguments and rebuttal arguments for measures submitted to the voters is subject to public review.
10 During that review period, any voter of the jurisdiction may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction
11 requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The City Clerk has declared that the
12 review period is July 25, 2022 to August 4, 2022.
13 9. In addition to the specific requirements, Section 9295 of the Elections Code restricts
14 information in the voter pamphlet, including arguments and rebuttal arguments for measures
15 submitted to the voters, to material which is neither false, misleading nor inconsistent with the
16 purpose of the Elections Code provisions.
17 10. RPI submitted the Rebuttal Argument which contains the language set forth in
18 Paragraph 6, supra. The language identified in the Rebuttal Argument is false, misleading,
19 irrelevant, and inconsistent with the law of arguments and rebuttal arguments for measures
20 submitted to the voters for the reasons set forth below.
21 11. The “essential purpose” of a ballot argument “is to give the voters information
22 concerning the measures on the ballot.” (Hart v. Jordan (1939) 14 Cal.2d 288, 292.) It is not, as
23 the Rebuttal Argument does here, to attack proponents of the ballot measure, spread false
24 information about the proponents of the ballot measure, or to make misstatements of the law. False
25 or misleading statements must be removed from the ballot argument. (Elec. Code, § 9295.)
26 Personal and ad hominem attacks are inconsistent with the purpose of the ballot argument and must
27 be stricken. (Patterson v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 22, 32.) Additionally,
28 issues that are irrelevant to the ballot measure must be stricken. (Ibid.)
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
4
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 12. References to Councilmembers Bolton and Kalmick, as set forth in Paragraph 6.a,
2 are irrelevant. The good name, motive, or qualification of the proponents is not “an argument for
3 or against this particular [ ] issue. (Patterson, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 34.) References to
4 opposing candidates is not permitted with respect to candidate statements. (Elec. Code, § 13308.)
5 Reference to proponents of the measure is even less relevant and therefore not appropriate.
6 13. References to “NOT licensed attorneys,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.b, are irrelevant.
7 As to Councilmember Bolton, the statement is false. Councilmember Bolton is in fact a licensed
8 attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. Additionally, it is
9 misleading as to both Councilmembers Bolton and Kalmick as it implies that they are operating in
10 some fashion as attorneys.
11 14. The statement “PROVE this is a POWER-GRAB to give City Council MORE
12 POWER to hire outside attorneys - BYPASSING the voters’ City Attorney,” as set forth in
13 Paragraph 6.c, is false and/or misleading. Measure 3 only clarifies the City Council’s existing
14 authority. According to the impartial analysis prepared by Respondent Estanislau, Measure 3
15 “defines the attorney-client relationship in the City. . . . [T]he City Council (client) would direct
16 all litigation and legal matters. The City Attorney (attorney) would, in turn, receive that direction
17 and manage all litigation and legal matters accordingly.” This is how the attorney-client
18 relationship is already defined under the Business and Professions Code and the California Rules
19 of Professional Conduct. Nor does Measure 3 allow the City Council to “bypass” the City Attorney,
20 as the City Council can “hire outside attorneys to manage certain legal matters, but only in specific,
21 limited circumstances” either at the City Attorney’s request or when the City Attorney has a conflict
22 of interest and, pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct cannot participate in the decision.
23 The measure restates existing law.
24 15. The reference to “INDEPENDENCE of the City Attorney,” as set forth in Paragraph
25 6.d, is false and/or misleading. The City Attorney’s office is not an independent department of the
26 City of Huntington Beach. It is the corporate attorney’s office of the municipal corporation (i.e.,
27 the City of Huntington Beach) for which the City Council functions as the “board of directors.”
28 Section 304 of the Huntington Beach City Charter states: “The City Council shall have control of
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 all legal business and proceedings and all property of the legal department, and may employ other
2 attorneys to take charge of or may contract for any prosecution, litigation or other legal matter or
3 business.” The City Attorney is not independent of the City Council. The City Council is the client
4 of the City Attorney. The California Rules of Professional Conduct set forth the allocation of
5 authority between an attorney and client. A “lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning
6 the objectives of representation” and “consult with the client as to the means by which they are to
7 be pursued.” (Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.2(a).) “At the outset of, or during a representation,
8 the client may authorize the lawyer to take specific action on the client’s behalf without further
9 consultation. . . . The client may revoke such authority at any time.” (Id., cmt. [2] [emphasis
10 added].) The City Attorney cannot operate without the direction of the City Council. The long-
11 standing opinion of the Huntington Beach City Attorney’s Office confirms this relationship, as does
12 the penultimate sentence of the Rebuttal Argument, which states that all the decisions related to the
13 City’s legal matters were made “BY THE CITY COUNCIL.”
14 16. The statement “This Amendment gives MORE power to City Council to secretly
15 hire attorneys behind closed-doors, hidden from voters” as set forth in Paragraph 6.e, is false and/or
16 misleading. As set forth in Paragraph 14, supra, Measure 3 only clarifies the City Council’s existing
17 authority.
18 17. The statement “In 2021, City Council secretly and ILLEGALLY hired (violation of
19 Section 309, City Charter),” as set forth in Paragraph 6.f, is false and/or misleading and irrelevant.
20 The City Council did not act in violation of the City Charter when it legally hired an attorney to do
21 an operational review of the City’s handling of a specific employment litigation matter that named
22 the City Attorney personally and which the City Attorney’s office oversaw. The California Rules
23 of Professional Conduct are clear that the City Attorney could not undertake a review of the
24 handling of a matter by the City Attorney’s Office. “A lawyer shall not, without informed written
25 consent from each affected client . . . represent a client if there is a significant risk the lawyer’s
26 representation of the client will be materially limited . . . by the lawyer’s own interests.” (Cal.
27 Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.7(b).) A “conflict of interest requiring informed written consent
28 under paragraph (b) exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
6
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of
2 the lawyer’s other responsibilities, interests, or relationships, whether legal, business, financial,
3 professional, or personal.” (Id., cmt. [4].) “A lawyer shall not . . . acquire an . . . other pecuniary
4 interest adverse to a client, unless” he has obtained informed written consent of the client.”
5 (California Rules of Professional Responsibility, rule 1.8.) “A lawyer has an ‘other pecuniary
6 interest adverse to a client’ within the meaning of this rule when the lawyer possesses a legal right
7 to significantly impair or prejudice the client’s rights or interests without court action.” (Id., cmt.
8 [1].) Here, there was a significant conflict that made disqualification of the City Attorney’s office
9 required. (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275.) The City Attorney’s ability to objectively
10 review that matter and recommend actions to the City Council was therefore hopelessly conflicted
11 because of the City Attorney’s personal, financial, and political interests. And because the entire
12 office’s handling of the matter was subject to review, that conflict existed with respect to all
13 employees of the City Attorney’s office.
14 18. The statement “lapdog attorney Craig Steele, who is a progressive POLITICAL
15 activist,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.g, is false and/or misleading and irrelevant. Petitioner is
16 informed and believes that Mr. Steele is a registered Republican and a long time City Attorney at
17 the prestigious firm Richards Watson and Gershon, APC (“RWG”), where he has practiced for
18 almost his entire legal career. He is not a “political activist” and neither Respondents nor RPI can
19 point to evidence of any such activity. Furthermore, Mr. Steele’s political activism (or lack thereof)
20 is not relevant to the ballot measure to be decided upon by the voters.
21 19. The statement “favorite of LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND Councilmember
22 Kalmick,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.h, is false and irrelevant. Petitioner is informed and believes
23 that Mr. Steele is not a friend of Councilmember Dan Kalmick of Huntington Beach nor Mayor Joe
24 Kalmick of Seal Beach. Petitioner is informed and believes that Councilmember Dan Kalmick met
25 Craig Steele for the first time around April of 2021. Petitioner is informed and believes that Dan
26 Kalmick’s only interactions with Mr. Steele have been in relation to legal matters concerning the
27 City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Steele coincidently is the City Attorney for the City of Seal Beach
28 and was the City Attorney prior to Mayor Joe Kalmick’s election in February of 2019. Petitioner
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
7
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 is informed and believes that Mayor Joe Kalmick’s only interaction with Mr. Steele is with respect
2 to legal matters pertaining to the City of Seal Beach. They are not friends. Furthermore, Mr.
3 Steele’s friendships (or lack thereof) are not relevant to the ballot measure to be decided upon by
4 the voters.
5 20. The statement that the “City Council secretly paid Steele $50,000 . . . with no
6 contract,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.i, is false and irrelevant. Public Records disclose that the City
7 paid $35,577, not $50,000. That amount was paid to RWG, not to Mr. Steele. Nor were payments
8 made “secretly” or “with no contract,” as public records demonstrate that the amounts paid were
9 public, and the report issued by RWG was assigned “under a pre-existing legal services agreement
10 between the City and RWG.”
11 21. The statement that the City Council is “a highly political body of non-lawyers,” as
12 set forth in Paragraph 6.j, is false and/or misleading and irrelevant. Councilmember Bolton is an
13 attorney. Additionally, the makeup of the City Council is not relevant to the ballot measure before
14 the voters. Furthermore, there are neither any requirements nor prohibitions that members of the
15 Huntington Beach City Council be attorneys, and the legal duties, pursuant to the City Charter and
16 other state laws, do not vary based on the identity of the then-current councilmembers.
17 22. The statement that “Although highly critical of Mr. Gates, non-attorneys
18 Bolton/Kalmick,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.k, is false and/or misleading. Councilmember Bolton
19 is an attorney. The statement also inappropriately refers directly to the two Councilmembers
20 designated by the City Council to write the ballot argument.
21 23. The statement that the authors of the argument in favor of Measure 3 “make a
22 number of false claims against Mr. Gates, which are not true,” as set forth in Paragraph 6.l, is false
23 and/or misleading. The argument in favor of Measure 3 does not reference City Attorney Michael
24 E. Gates by name or title. And because the argument in favor of Measure 3 does not make any
25 false claims, the statement in the Rebuttal Argument is false.
26 24. For these reasons, the statements identified above are false, misleading to the voters,
27 and inconsistent with Elections Code, and should be stricken from the Rebuttal Argument.
28
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 25. The Rebuttal Argument was previously protested to the City Clerk. Allowing any
2 alternative language at this late date would deprive Petitioner and other voters from considering
3 and challenging any such argument pursuant to Section 9295 of the Elections Code.
4 26. Unless Respondents are required to strike the false, misleading, and inconsistent
5 portions of the Rebuttal Argument as set forth in Paragraph 2, the ballot pamphlet sent to the voters
6 will contain materials which are in violation of the Elections Code and the voters will be misled by
7 the materials.
8 27. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate alternative remedy to the issuance of a
9 writ of mandate. Unless the writ of mandate is immediately granted the election will occur prior to
10 the hearing of this matter, and the voters will suffer injury and be misled.
11 28. Issuance of the writ at this time will not substantially interfere with the conduct of
12 the election.
13
14 WHEREFORE petitioner prays as follows:
15 1. That the court issue an alternative writ, and then a peremptory writ of mandate under
16 the seal of this court commanding Respondent to delete the Rebuttal argument, or
17 in the alternative, delete the words cited in Paragraph 6, supra;
18 2. That attorneys’ fees be awarded petitioner to the extent permitted under law;
19 3. Costs of suit;
20 4. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
21
22 Dated: August 3, 2022 BROWER LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
23
24
By:
25 Lee K. Fink
26 Attorneys for Petitioner
27
28
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
DocuSign Envelope ID: D1C7AF2A-84C9-4972-951F-0D8EA35D6B60
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, John Briscoe, certify and declare that I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT
3 OF MANDATE and know its contents.
4 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing documents are true of my
5 own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, as to those
6 matters I believe them to be true.
7
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9 foregoing is true and correct.
10
11 Executed this 3rd day of August, 2022.
12
13
John Briscoe
14 Petitioner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BROWER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Exhibit A
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Charter Amendment Measure 3
Councilmembers Bolton/Kalmick (NOT licensed attorneys) PROVE this is a POWER-GRAB to give City
Council MORE POWER to hire outside attorneys - BYPASSING the voters' City Attorney. It's DANGEROUS
- it undermines the INDEPENDENCE of the City Attorney that HB has voted for since early-1900s. The
City Attorney has successfully fought FOR THE RESIDENTS, won countless major legal victories, and
ensured City Council follows ALL LAWS. This Amendment gives MORE POWER to City Council to secretly
hire attorneys behind closed-doors, hidden from voters. In 2021, City Council secretly and ILLEGALLY
hired (violation Section 309, City Charter) lapdog attorney Craig Steele, who is a
progressive POLITICAL activist and favorite of LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND Councilmember Kalmick.
City Council secretly paid Steele $50,000 of taxpayer money with no contract to produce a phony
"political hit piece" attacking Mr. Gates. This is what giving City Council, a highly political body of non
lawyers, the POWER to hire their lapdog attorneys produces - political harm and deception designed to
dupe the public into believing this proposed Charter Amendment is necessary. The only thing it proves is
the DANGER created by hiring attorneys behind closed-doors. Although highly critical of Mr. Gates, non
attorneys Bolton/Kalmick were NOT ON CITY COUNCIL during most of Mr. Gates's legal work. Yet,
Bolton/Kalmick make a number of false claims against Mr. Gates, which are not true. I have worked with
Mr. Gates for 8 years. All decisions were made BY CITY COUNCIL and Mr. Gates is nothing but a stellar
City Attorney. Vote NO.
The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the Rebuttal to Argument in favor Charter of Amendment
Measure 3 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November
8, 2022, hereby states that such argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
Signed: Date:
Erik Peterson^
Signed: Date:
(type name here exactly as signed)
Signed: Date:
(type name here exactly as signed)
ro
Signed: Date: C=3
ro
(type name here exactly as signed)
l o cz
5D
m
Signed: Date: r>
rM
(type name here exactly as signed) 3=^ cn rn
zo£. -o
Z3C
m
Fo
> O
O CJl
r
o
FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS
All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with § 9200) of the Elections
Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if
different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the (primary/rebuttal) argument (in favor of/against) Charter Amendment
Measure 3 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 8, 2022,
hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of (his/her/their) knowledge and belief.
Print Name _Erik Peterson_
Title _Huntington Beach City Council Member
(If applicable):Submitted on behalf of : Signature
(name of organization) Date
Print Name
Title
(If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Signature
(name of organization) Date
Print Name
Title
ro
<=»
(If applicable):Submitted on behalf of : Signature x
"CT isa
30
(name of organization) Date 5 o fe
Print Name
G>Z«-< ro O
—4^ cn m
Title 5 -<9
(If applicable):Submitted on behalf of : Signature
m yr
rn
(name of organization) Date >
n o
Print Name r o
Title
(If applicable):Submitted on behalf of : Signature
(name of organization) Date
All Authors must print his/her name and sign this form (EC 9600)
AND
Print his/her name and sign the Argument itself (EC 9283)
AND
Print his/her name and sign the Rebuttal Argument itself (EC 9285)
Further, pursuant to Election Code § 9282, printed arguments submitted to the voters shall be titled either
"Argument In Favor Of Measure ” or “Argument Against Measure ",
Likewise, printed rebuttal arguments submitted pursuant to Election Code § 9285 shall be titled either "Rebuttal
To Argument In Favor Of Measure ” or “Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure ”.
Give this form to Council Members, Proponents, and Opponents of Measures
The following statement shall be included on the front cover, or if none, on the heading of the first page of the printed arguments in the
Voter Information Guide:
"Arguments in support or opposition of the proposed laws are the opinions of the authors.”
§ 9200, 9282, 9283, 9285, 9600 E.C. Statement of Authors of Arguments
F-A- 1
Exhibit B
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Charter Amendment Measure 3
Councilmembers Bolton/Kalmick (NOT licensed attorneys) PROVE this is a POWER-GRAB to give City
Council MORE POWER to hire outside attorneys - BYPASSING the voters' City Attorney. It's DANGEROUS
- it undermines the INDEPENDENCE of the City Attorney that HB has voted for since early-1900s. The
City Attorney has successfully fought FOR THE RESIDENTS, won countless major legal victories, and
ensured City Council follows ALL LAWS. This Amendment gives MORE POWER to City Council to secretly
hire attorneys behind closed-doors, hidden from voters. In 2021, City Council secretly and ILLEGALLY
hired (violation Section 309, City Charter) lapdog attorney Craig Steele, who is a
progressive POLITICAL activist and favorite of LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND Councilmember Kalmick.
City Council secretly paid Steele $50,000 of taxpayer money with no contract to produce a phony
"political hit piece" attacking Mr. Gates. This is what giving City Council, a highly political body of non
lawyers, the POWER to hire their lapdog attorneys produces - political harm and deception designed to
dupe the public into believing this proposed Charter Amendment is necessary. The only thing it proves is
the DANGER created by hiring attorneys behind closed-doors. Although highly critical of Mr. Gates, non
attorneys Bolton/Kalmick were NOT ON CITY COUNCIL during most of Mr. Gates's legal work. Yet,
Bolton/Kalmick make a number of false claims against Mr. Gates, which are not true. I have worked with
Mr. Gates for 8 years. All decisions were made BY CITY COUNCIL and Mr. Gates is nothing but a stellar
City Attorney. Vote NO.
The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the Rebuttal to Argument in favor Charter of Amendment
Measure 3 at the General Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November
8, 2022, hereby states that such argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
Signed: Date:
Erik Peterson^
Signed: Date:
(type name here exactly as signed)
Signed: Date:
(type name here exactly as signed)
ro
Signed: Date: C=3
ro
(type name here exactly as signed)
l o cz
5D
m
Signed: Date: r>
rM
(type name here exactly as signed) 3=^ cn rn
zo£. -o
Z3C
m
Fo
> O
O CJl
r
o
