In October of 2012, we reported that then Brea City Council Candidate Steve Vargas’ lawsuit against the City of Brea had cost taxpayers over $80K. The lawsuit was over the validity of City Council-authored rebuttals to two 2012 ballot measures, according to the O.C. Register.
On September 22, 2015, Vargas, who is now a Brea City Council Member, won a motion for attorney fees in the amount of $393,514.50.
What this means is that the attorney fees we cited in 2012 have mushroomed to almost $400K for what many termed to be a trivial lawsuit. The local media has not reported what is likely a near a million dollar cost to Brea taxpayers when cost of city staff time is added to the final bill.
Vargas campaigned as being a fiscal conservative. He is a “Tea Party” Republican. At the 12/15 Brea City Council meeting Vargas went on about how eliminating a handicapped access from Lagos Park improvements would save $20,000.00, as if he’s concerned about saving the taxpayers money. We will most likely witness similar hypocrisy at the 2/2 Public Hearing on water rates.
The irony inherent in the case, according to Markman and Murdock, is that Vargas supported Measure T, which aimed to limit raises for certain city employees, according to the O.C. Register. The ideology behind the measure was to save money for the taxpayers. But because Vargas kept beating a dead horse, the City of Brea is now stuck with a pile of legal fees.
It should also be noted that on Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Orange County Superior Court Judge Michael Leversen found Vargas liable for embezzling $1,570 from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Brea Post 5384, according to the Orange Juice Blog. THE BREAN broke and has been covering this story. Click here and here for more.
On April 20, 2015, VFW Brea Post 5384 filed a lawsuit against Steve Vargas for embezzling 14 checks that were written out to “Brea VFW Post 5384.” Vargas took these checks and deposited them into his own organization’s bank account, the North Orange County Veterans Club. After several fruitless attempts to convince Vargas to give them their money back, the Brea VFW filed suit.
We believe that Brea’s taxpayers have a right to know about the waste of taxpayer dollars on this trivial lawsuit and how the cost was greatly escalated by Vargas’ continued motions. As we originally reported in October 2012, the ballot materials that were at the heart of the lawsuit had already been printed so the case was moot from the beginning.
This article is full of smears and half truths. I certainly agree that the Brea taxpayers have the right to know about the waste of Brea’s resources on the lawsuit. But that waste wasn’t caused by Councilmember Vargas…rather, IMHO, it was the fault of those former City Councilmembers who persisted in litigating the matter despite multiple opportunities to settle. In fact, at the beginning they could have simply followed the law and avoided litigation all together. And the Fourth District Court of Appeal also did not think it “trivial.” Instead, that court decided to hear and rule on the case even though the matter was mooted because the election was over and no effective relief could be granted…A fact that the reporter could have found out by simply READING the opinion. How do I know? Because I’m the attorney who represented Councilmember Vargas on that lawsuit.
You should be a happy camper as your firm is getting paid a mint by the City of Brea.
Yes, I’m happy that Steven Vargas, now Councilmember Vargas, finally got a fair hearing and a fair ruling. Now I’m having to counter the dis-information being unfairly spread on the Internet. My client, Councilmember Vargas, is a hero, many times over. He stood up when no one else would and he persisted even when the outcome looked very bleak. The citizens of Brea have elected a truly great individual.
Whatever beef you have with him, get over it. You’re going after a good guy. Rather than smearing him, you should first learn a bit more about him, and the facts.
If you’re so concerned about the money, why not go after those former Brea councilmembers and their attorneys? They could have avoided litigation altogether when, at the very beginning I wrote a detailed letter explaining the law and what the City was doing wrong. At that point, the cost would have been zero. There were other times I offered to settle for far less than was finally awarded by the court, but was rebuffed.
I do think you MIGHT be right about one thing…that the City will pay more for LOSING the case, and losing very badly, than we’ll get paid for WINNING. If, as you seem to claim, the total amount will exceed $1M and we’re getting less than half of that, that must mean that the losing attorneys will be getting MORE than us, the winning attorneys, by about 50% !!
(I.e., $1M – 400K = $600K; $600/$400 = 1.5 => a 50% “bonus” for losing !! )
What’s wrong with this picture? Shouldn’t the winning attorneys be paid _more_ than the losing attorneys??
The extra money as I understand it is for staff time.
What? You say you _understand_ it is for staff time? Don’t you _know_? You’re supposed to be reporting the facts, correct? Why do you say, “May cost $1M”? Ok, so where did that $1M figure come from? Did you just make it up out of thin air?
In any case, what about our “staff time”? Just like the City’s attorney’s we have staff and other expenses, too. So if your “$1M” figure isn’t just something you made up then the comparison I made is valid…the City council (which at that time, included Schweitzer and Murdock) authorized expenditures that (again, based upon your numbers) was 50% higher to _lose_ the case. While, if they’d simply followed the law from the very beginning, they would have spent nothing.
THAT’S what you should be reporting on.
And Vargas was not, as you insinuate, beating a dead horse.
No horse has ever been declared dead, and then not only come back to life, but also come back to win a Kentucky Derby. Yet winning the legal equal of the Kentucky Derby is what happened in Vargas’ case.. He lost at the trial level and then, after the election when the matter was legally moot, he appealed and won a major legal victory with a published opinion that is now legal precedent throughout the entire state of California. A ‘dead horse’, you say? Not hardly ! The Appellate Court justices thought his case was so important that they decided to hear and rule on it, even though it was moot and then publish it! And he did it at a bargain price, too, assuming your $1M figure is accurate.
Yes, Vargas did support Measure T, which does roll back _his_ City Council wages. That’s right, not just “some city wages” as you report, but rolled back his wages as well! In other words, he’s not asking the City manager, or anyone else in the City, to take a pay ‘hit’ any more than he’s taking himself!! That’s being fair! That’s putting one’s money where one’s mouth is!
You write about it as though he did something bad, when in fact he did something wonderful! He’s probably the only elected official in the entire state, probably the entire country, that personally supported a measure that REDUCES his own government paid salary! That shows he’s sincere, and has integrity.
Unfortunately for Vargas all the voters will think about is that he blew one million dollars of their money.
What? The voters of Brea are smarter than that!
Shees! He couldn’t have authorized those expenditures because he wasn’t even on the council back then! Anyone who knows the City Brea knows that!
Good luck because that’s what the voters are going to hear.
From whom? YOU? HA-Ha!
You might be a lawyer but you clearly don’t understand politics. Brea is a small town with few voters. It will be easy for opponents to hammer Vargas with direct mail. He is toast.
What a completely biased rehash of news that is at least a year old or older. Today’s news cycle is measured in nanoseconds Mr. Pedroza… not fortnights.
Murdock, Schweitzer, O’Donnell and Markman must be the sorest losers on the planet. IMHO, their arrogance seduced them into believing they were above election law, the appellate court confirmed they were wrong.
If anyone is flogging s dead horse Mr. Pedroza, I suggest it might be you.
From what I am hearing the voters in Brea are most displeased with your pal Vargas.
You obviously need to get away from that little granny flat down on Date street and listen to what the rest of Brea is saying. You’re sample is far too small to be of value.
We shall see.
While all laws should be adhered to, on the Scales of Justice which would likely weigh more? The city being found in violation of election law for incorrectly signing a ballot argument? Or, Mr. Vargas being found liable by an OC Superior Court Judge for embezzling 14 checks from the VFW?
Mr. Teyssier’s comments about the city also apply to Mr. Vargas. Mr. Vargas also “could have avoided litigation altogether when at the very beginning” the VFW discovered their checks had been deposited into Mr. Vargas’ organization’s account and simply asked for their $1,570 be returned. “At that point, the cost would have been zero”. Numerous times over several months the VFW offered to settle if Mr. Vargas would simply give them their money. Instead, Mr. Vargas “persisted in litigating the matter despite multiple opportunities to settle”. This resulted in the $5,125 judgment against Mr. Vargas for something that could have quietly been resolved by returning $1,570 to the rightful owner. Or better yet, possessing the good judgment to have not taken someone else’s money in the first place.
Two expensive legal proceedings with Mr. Vargas, described by his attorney as “a truly great individual”, “a good guy”, “has integrity” and “did something wonderful”.being the only commonality in the two proceedings.
Mr. Teyssier asks “what about our staff time”? Wasn’t that included in your $393,514.50 fee or was that all for yourself? The city attorney staff time cost would be included in his fees which are likely similar to yours but city staff time also needs to be paid out of Brea taxes.
Mr. Clark, on Sept. 22, 2015, less than four months ago, Mr. Vargas was awarded nearly $393,514.50 for Mr. Teyssier’s attorney fees. On June 3, 2015, less than seven months ago, Mr. Vargas was found liable for embezzling. Your claim “news that is at least a year old or older” is not correct.
Dear Disgusted Brea Voter (i.e. Mr. Colletti, Schweitzer, Murdock, whatever):
So, we should enforce laws that suit you and ignore others? As Mr. Teyssier pointed out, the city could have easily resolved the election law matter at zero cost. Ask O’Donnell and Markman why they didn’t.
Final judgement by appellate court, which you so conveniently overlook, hold the city, Schweitzer and Murdock equally and separately liable for attorney fees – which do include Mr. Teyssier’s staff time no matter how you chose to cloud the matter.
Regarding the VFW matter, that too has long been resolved. Pick and choose your issue du jour, us as inflammatory language as you wish. It appears obvious that your vendetta against Councilman Vargas is unlikely to go away any time soon.
If you finally grow a pair and stop hiding behind internet anonymity I will gladly engage you on any matter you wish to debate. Meanwhile, please hop on that flogged horse of yours and tilt at some other windmill.
Mr. Clark, your question “So, we should enforce laws that suit you and ignore others?” is an odd interpretation of “While all laws should be adhered to”. My comment did not advocate selective enforcement of any laws but the exact opposite by stating “ALL LAWS should be adhered to”.
I acknowledge and agree with Mr. Teyssier’s comments about the city. My comment was THE SAME “could also apply to Mr. Vargas”. “Also apply” indicates BOTH parties “could have easily resolved” their “matter at zero cost”. It seems you have another odd interpretation of “also apply”.
Have you acknowledged Mr. Vargas could have avoided cost, not to mention public awareness, of his taking VFW checks? Have you asked Mr. Vargas why he didn’t return the VFW’s money to avoid litigation? I don’t recall your blog reporting on the VFW vs. Vargas case last June or the Vargas award of attorney fees from the city of Brea this past September. Another oddity as you profess to be a supporter of transparency.
I did not overlook “final judgment by appellate court” or attempt to “cloud the issue” about Mr. Teyssier’s staff time as if it were separate. Mr. Teyssier was the one that asked “what about our staff time?”. If you read words as written “wasn’t that included” and “city attorney staff time cost would be included in his fees” indicates and acknowledges my belief that Mr. Teyssier’s staff time cost would have been included in Vargas’s award of nearly $400,000.
In addition to odd interpretations apparently you use an odd calendar as less than four months ago and less than seven months ago is not “a year or older” nor “long been resolved”.
It seems it is you choosing to cloud the matters.
Please quote the “inflammatory language” you referred to as other than your crude references/language I don’t see any inflammatory language. Presenting facts is not a vendetta against Mr. Vargas. Both Vargas vs. Balz and VFW vs. Vargas are factual cases with published results.
Preferring internet anonymity is a choice to avoid the smearing done by you and some of your cronies. A person that recently expressed an opinion about a newspaper article at a council meeting was vilified on your blog as you had a different opinion. The source of smear mailers, cartoons and street banners mocking others are no secret.
I commend ocpoliticsblog for posting all opinions. It is well known that you only publish opinions that agree with your own. Perhaps your blog would get more comments if you were open to opinions other than your own and did not attack if someone has a different opinion.
No cojones, no hay discusión… Señor Diamond?
I’m not getting something here. If the issue was so trivial why didn’t the City capitulate instead of running up big bills on both sides?
Most likely it was pitched as some sort of “principle” thing, and maybe the City staff and Council had (self-serving) reasons against improperly describing the ballot measures in the first place. In any case it’s hard to blame the victor for lack of judgment. I’d say that albatross belongs around the neck of the City Attorney Markman, a dude known (by me, personally) for arrogance and indifference to the taxpayer. How much did Markman make overseeing this fiasco?
If people who work for government would be less interested in their on interests and more in good stewardship these lawsuits would go away.
Well said Mr. Zenger.
Mr. Zenger there is no argument the city was found in violation of election law. The issue is the hypocrisy of Mr. Vargas holding the city accountable to the exact letter of the law for a ballot signature (there was no claim of the city “improperly describing the ballot measures”) while Mr. Vargas ignored the law, misappropriated checks from the VFW and was found liable for embezzlement.
One either supports following the law or not. Selective enforcement of the law, demanding others follow the law while not doing so, is hypocritical.
It’s as hypocritical as claiming to be a champion of the taxpayers while suing the county (taxpayers) for a million plus when terminated from a county position for disrespect and insubordination.
Agree people who work for government and especially those elected claiming fiscal conservativeness should be more interested in good stewardship. As Brea council focuses on raising water rates at the upcoming public hearing some will wish the near million spent on a lawsuit over a signature could have instead been used for infrastructure maintenance.
Mr. Clark claiming to be against internet anonymity while allowing anonymous comments on your blog is also hypocritical.
Your facts are wrong. I have never sued anybody.
I wasn’t terminated for insubordination and disrespect – unless you happen to believe Shawn Nelson, whose record on truthfulness is now generally seen as unworthy of respect or subordination. I was fired because I discovered a fraudulent contract at Dana Point Harbor and turned it over to the stinking pile over to the Internal Auditor who was forced to investigate, a move that enraged Nelson’s fellow grifters on the BoS.
The amount spent on Brea’s lawsuit belongs to the Brea City Council – not Vargas. They could have quit anytime they wanted. The VFW issues belongs to completely different discussion. You don’t like Vargas so you blame him for the misfeasance and legal foxholing perpetrated by the City Council. That’s nonsense.
Now come out from under your rock and let me talk to a real person with a name.
And P.S. if you knew what you were talking about you would know that water infrastructure is paid for out of an enterprise fund – not the General Fund and has NOTHING to do with non-water lawsuit payouts. And be sure to ask whether your town has an in-lieu franchise fee tacked on to the water utility.
Now go boo hoo.