By Lyn Jensen, Carson Reporter
Albert Robles, the mayor of Carson and a director of the Water Replenishment District, was in Los Angeles Superior Court on Feb. 27 attempting to mount legal justification for holding both those elected offices at the same time, despite state law prohibiting it.
Judge James C. Chalfant tentatively found that under California Government Code 1099, the offices are incompatible. “What’s in front of me is potential conflict,” he said. “Inherent conflict.”
The judge explained that Carson has an interest in keeping water rates down, but the water board doesn’t.
Robles, representing himself, succeeded in arguing enough points that the judge delayed issuing a final order. Instead, Robles and Deputy District Attorney Marian Thompson were instructed to submit to the court eight-page supplemental arguments on five specific points of law–then return to court April 17 for a final decision.
But the judge could instead issue a final order based on the supplemental arguments without a return to court.
The Los Angeles District Attorney began investigating whether Robles’ two elected offices represented incompatible conflict of interest shortly after Robles was first elected to the Carson city council in 2013 but did not resign from the water board, to which he was first elected in 1992.
Under California Government Code 1099, “A public officer … shall not simultaneously hold two offices that are incompatible.” If the two offices are found to be incompatible, the officer is “deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second.”
Robles’ argument relied largely on the law’s allowance for carving out exceptions. Carson in December 2017 passed an ordinance to allow council members to simultaneously serve as “elected or appointed officers” on several other specific governing bodies, including the Water Replenishment District. Around the same time the district adopted a resolution to allow its directors to sit on city councils.
Chalfant stated bluntly that the state legislature’s intent was not for local officials to “wiggle out” of compliance by passing local laws. He determined that although Carson’s ordinance may have the force of law, the water board’s resolution does not.
Pumping taxes that Carson pays the district make a major part of the District Attorney’s case. Robles said the potential for increased pumping taxes were not “significant” and therefore could not be considered to cause “significant” conflict of interest. He said even a “fifty percent increase” would only amount to three cents for every Carson resident.
Using Robles’ own words from a water board presentation he made to Carson in 2013, both Thompson and the judge hammered Robles on that point. Additionally, the figures Robles presented in his defense did not add up with the figures he provided in that presentation.
“By his own words before the council, legal fees would go directly into the pockets of the attorneys, and water rates would be quadrupled,” said Thompson.
“Three cents here and three cents there and soon you add up to real money,” the judge said, paraphrasing the late Senator Everett Dirksen’s “a billion here and a billion there” speech.
Thompson presented evidence that the Water Replenishment District has a history of lobbying for its directors to hold city council seats. For a brief time in the early 90s, the legislature carved out an exception for the Water Replenishment District, only to hastily repeal the carve-out in 1991.
Based on Robles’ reliance on the statue’s allowance to carve out an exception and Thompson’s submitting an incomplete legislative history for 1099, the judge agreed to continue the carve-out issue.
Robles also tried to argue the case was moot because the complaint dated to his previous terms on both bodies. The judge continued that argument “as a jurisdictional matter” only. The judge also asked for a supplemental argument on “a home rule issue.”