(April 6, 2009) -- LB City Hall's "mushroom treatment" -- keeping the public in the dark while fed manure -- has met an immovable force.

City Attorney Bob Shannon has told TheDistrictWeekly.com's Dave Wielenga that he's concerned some "material points" -- legalese for matters sufficiently important that they might affect a decision on whether to enter into an agreement -- weren't conveyed to decisonmaking City Councilmembers regarding management's proposed swap of city-owned developable property for SE LB presumed wetlands.

This is stunning, seismic, bombshell level stuff in our view.

Again: whatever they are, the items are apparently so significant that City Attorney Shannon believes they might affect a Council decision on whether to do the deal.

Unspoken: if the City Attorney hadn't done what he did, the deal would be done...because [our opinions follow, not Mr. Shannon's] on Feb. 10, five Council incumbents (Suja Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, Patrick O'Donnell, Dee Andrews and Val Lerch) cast what in our opinion was a literally irresponsible vote. It was contrary to their responsibility to know -- and the public's right to know -- what was being done with public resources in the public's name.

In addition, the five incumbents -- so quick to demand "cost recovery" from their constituents for city services on multiple matters -- shrugged off $500,000 that city management proposed to have taxpayers swallow as part of the deal.

The defeated motion would have required the seller (LCW Partners, a Tom Dean-related LLC) to absorb up to $500,000 in city costs entailed in relocating the city public service yard and (2) to have city management bring the final negotiated agreement back to the Council for public view and Council voted approval. The 3-5 vote: Yes: Schipske, Gabelich, Reyes Uranga; No: S. Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Andrews, Lerch; 1st dist. vacant.

By May (when the swap will apparently return to the Council), a new 1st dist. Councilmember will likely have been certified as the April 7 election winner. How would he or she be likely to vote?

At a Feb. 12 1st district Council candidates forum, Council candidate Robert Garcia responded as follows when asked about what the Council did two days earlier on Feb. 10:

"I think that we should be asking what the intention of Mr. Dean [is] to build there," Mr. Garcia said. ["Asking"?] "...Could the Council have waited for a [new 1st dist.] Councilmember to be seated? I'm not sure. ["Not sure"?] I'd like to think the answer was yes. ["Like to think"?] I wish they would have waited, but they went forward, and I'm glad we're going towards a full restoration of the wetlands." [What about the $500k?]

Mr. Garcia's campaign contributors include two LLC's involving LCW's Tom Dean or his business partner...["Berger Investment Group LLC" ($500, Feb. 9); Wilmington Lomita Blvd. LLC ($500, Feb. 17)]. Another contributor is Councilman Gary DeLong ($251, Jan. 29).

How do you suppose Mr. Garcia would vote if he's on the Council when the swap returns in May?

On March 23, Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske (who voted against the Feb. 10 transaction) sent a letter to the Mayor and Council seeking a Council session on the land swap. In an accompanying release, Schipske said the Council majority had "abdicated responsibility for reviewing the transaction and sales agreement by voting to allow the City Manager and staff to complete negotiations and execute the agreement without council oversight."

Schipske urged that the proposed transaction be placed on the agenda before it's executed by staff "in order for the Council to perform its fiduciary responsibilities to assure this transaction is in the best interest of the taxpayers."

She acknowledged that her understanding from the City Attorney is "that because this matter involves real estate negotiations that it should be discussed in a closed session. Therefore I am requesting that it be agendized for a closed session and that in the interim, City Manager West be instructed not to finalize nor execute the sales agreement until we get some answers."

Of course, we'd prefer to have the information released publicly immediately, but better late than never.

City Attorney Shannon has done the public a service by upholding a principle that transcends this transaction: elected decisionmakers must be told key points about what they're deciding.

The mushroom treatment isn't right for them...or for taxpayers they were elected to represent.