April 10,2003

The Honorable Roosevelt Dorn, Mayor
Honorable Members of the City Council,
City of Inglewood
One Manchester Boulevard
Inglewood, CA 90301

Dear Mayor Dorn and Councilmembers

Over the last few years this office has received numerous complaints regarding fiscal practices by Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn. The complaints allege that Mayor Dorn has used public funds to contribute to church and political organizations with no apparent public benefit. Critics also take the mayor and city council to task for their failure to follow the will of the Inglewood voters and decrease their salaries back to the pre-November 1996 level. Finally, we received a complaint of possible impropriety in November 2001 after the mayor and city council approved a payment to Mayor Dorn in two checks totaling over $26,000, purportedly for past expense reimbursements. In our analysis set forth below we conclude that while some of the practices by Mayor Dorn are questionable, criminal prosecution is not warranted at this time.

1. Mayor and City Council Salary Reduction Ordinance

On November 5, 1996, the citizens of Inglewood amended the provisions of the City Charter concerning the compensation of the Mayor and City Council (Inglewood City Charter, Article V, section 4). The amendment established, in pertinent part, "[t]he initial compensation of the four members of the City Council shall be set by ordinance and shall not exceed the average household income in Los Angeles County as determined by the 1990 U.S. Census. The compensation of the Mayor shall be not less than the compensation of a member of the City Council and not more than twice the compensation of a member of the City Council." At the time the City Charter was amended, the Mayor's monthly compensation was $1,616, and members of the City Council was compensated at $808 per month.

Thereafter, on November 26, 1996, the City Council set the salaries of a member of the City Council at $3,937 per month ($47,000/year) and the Mayor at $7,875 per month ($94,000/year), an increase of almost 500%. On April 6, 1999, the citizens of Inglewood passed Measure 99-A, an ordinance to reduce the salaries of the Mayor and City Council to the pre-November 1996 levels. Because of questions regarding its legality city officials did not implement the ordinance.¹ On January 18, 2000, Inglewood City Attorney Charles Dickerson, III issued an opinion wherein he concluded that the Inglewood City Charter only allowed for increases in compensation and did not allow for decreases in the salaries of the Mayor and City Council.² Accordingly, City Attorney Dickerson declared that the ballot measure could not be validly implemented.

It is the position of many Inglewood critics that the failure of the Mayor and City Council to implement the will of the voters and rescind the huge pay raises passed in November 1996, constitutes a violation of Penal Code section 424. We do not agree. The California District Attorney Association Uniform Crime Charging Manual and Los Angeles County District Attorney office policy dictate that the filing of a criminal complaint must be supported by admissible evidence sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and objective fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review has failed to yield sufficient evidence to meet that standard.

It is well established that the charter of a municipality is its constitution. (Brown v, City of Berkeley (1976) 57 Cal.App3d 223). We are confronted in this review with conflicting approaches of municipal law interpretation. Generally, where ordinances or bylaws have been enacted pursuant to competent authority they will be supported by every reasonable intendment and reasonable doubts as to their validity will be resolved in their favor." (lQ at p. 231). However, '" . . . an ordinance must conform to, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not 'exceed the [city's] charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a provision of the constitution of the state." [Citations] Currieri v. Citv of Roseville (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 997,1001).

In this case we have thoroughly reviewed the legal opinion by the Inglewood City Attorney, and find no reasonable basis to conclude the City Attorney's opinion is without merit. We presume the legal opinion was offered in good faith and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. The City Attorney's conclusion that the term "increase" in the City Charter, as it relates to compensation, does not also imply a salary decrease is not an unreasonable conclusion. It appears the language in the ordinance did have

Because the issue of whether the voters could validly decrease the salaries of the Mayor and City Council appears to be a close legal question, this office would have no grounds for a criminal filing against the elected Inglewood officials for their failure to decrease their salaries. In reaching this conclusion we are not taking a stand on the legality of the ordinance. Rather, we are merely concluding there appears to be a legal basis for the City Attorney's conclusion that Measure 99-A is invalid. Therefore, this office has no basis to prosecute the Mayor and the City Council for a violation of Penal Code section 424, the failure to rescind the November 1996 pay increases.

2. Reimbursement for Communications Expenses

Although the origin of this expense reimbursement is unknown, it appears that for some time the City of Inglewood has reimbursed elected officials for their expense incurred for communication devices (e.g., pagers, cellular and home telephones, facsimile machines) that are used in the performance of their official duties. Prior to December 1993, elected officials were reimbursed $50.00 for their home telephone and $150.00 for cell phones and pagers.⁴ On December 21, 1993, in a memorandum by Assistant City Manager Norman Cravens, the reimbursement policy was modified to a single reimbursement of $200.00 for all communications devices.⁵ Subsequently, the reimbursement amount has increased to $300.00

In order to receive the reimbursement the Mayor or City Council member submits a single page from a telephone bill, which sets forth an amount due. We found no bill submitted for the reimbursement which identified specific calls as city-related. According to Deputy City Administrator Mark Weinberg, the only apparent requirement is that the telephone bill have a Inglewood address, however, on a couple of occasions Mayor Dorn has submitted a telephone bill for reimbursement for a telephone, bearing an Inglewood address but with an Oklahoma area code.

The communications reimbursement policy appears to be in violation of the holding in Albriqht v. City of South San Francisco (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 866 (see also, Porter v. City of Riverside (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 832). In Albright, a local taxpayer sought to enjoin the city's practice of paying the mayor and councilmen $75 and $50 respectively per month as reimbursement for miscellaneous unitemized expenses incurred in the

Thus, the communication expense reimbursement is legally deficient on two grounds. It is, in essence, an informal policy that has not been ratified by City Council action. The policy also permits reimbursement to the mayor and council members on a monthly flat rate without a showing that the telephone charges on their respective monthly bill were linked to any identifiable municipal purpose or public benefit. Despite the concerns expressed above this office is declining to prosecute the current or past Inglewood mayor and council members who have received this payment due to their ostensible reliance on the reimbursement being authorized. We also note that Inglewood officials have recently cured the legal deficiency with the communication reimbursement by passing a resolution authorizing the payment.

3. Use of Public Funds for Non-Public Purposes

One of the more significant allegations against Mayor Roosevelt Dorn is that he has expended public funds for religious and other non-public purposes. In October of last year this office sent a letter to Mayor Dorn seeking his explanation for certain expenditures.⁸ In response to our letter we received a reply from Inglewood City Attorney Dickerson^.9 Dickerson cited the Inglewood City Charter Article III (Powers of the City), Section 4, Fiftieth Power, as the authority for expenditures for which we had sought explanation. That section provides:

"To provide at the beginning of the fiscal year hereafter an emergency

According to a notation in the City Charter the Fiftieth Power provision was amended by election on November 5, 1968, and approved by the Legislature on February 6, 1969. In October of last year the City of Inglewood also submitted for our consideration a "Memorandum of Law" from John R. Calhoun, Esq., former City Attorney of Long Beach^.10 Calhoun points out that,

"[t]he determination of what constitutes an appropriate expenditure of city funds for a public purpose generally lies with the city's legislative body. This concept is liberally construed and the legislative discretion and action will not be disturbed by the courts and will be upheld so long as the determination is not totally arbitrary and has a reasonable basis. [Citation] In a court's determination of whether a public purpose exists, only the legal propriety of the expenditure should be examined and not the economic or governmental wisdom of the expenditure. [Citation]"

Clearly, courts are hesitant to intervene into the affairs of a charter city. Thus, while we may strongly disagree with the rationale offered by former City Attorney Dickerson in support of those expenditures (see e.g., Installation Banquet for Bishop Johnny Young; John Langston Bar Association Installation and Award Dinner, New Frontier Democratic Club Installation Awards Luncheon, Souvenir Advertisements, American Bar Association Dues), our only role in this inquiry is to determine whether the spending was authorized by law. ¹¹

4. Business Lunches

We have also received complaints about the use of public funds by public officials to pay for lunches and catered meals. There appear to be an inordinate number of expenditures for business lunches and catering at City Hall. According to records we obtained prior to April 1997, before Mayor Dorn was elected, there were only a few instances of expenditures from the city budget for business lunches, from the Mayor Fund. However, since Mayor Dorn's election the City of Inglewood has made extensive expenditures for meals where city business was allegedly transacted. From April 1997-July 1999, there are over one hundred entries for business lunches at the "Forum", a sports arena in the City of Inglewood. These lunches were not paid for at the time service was rendered. Instead the city was billed monthly for the charges incurred at the Forum, a somewhat unique payment arrangement for a municipality and a private restaurant. There is very little documentation in the overwhelming majority of invoices to show the identity of the city official that had lunch, the identities of individuals who had lunch with the city official and what was the nature of the business discussed over lunch. Clearly the preferred practice would be for city officials to provide documentation which would show who was entertained and for what purpose.

There are also numerous other business lunches at local and out of town restaurants documented in the records we have received from the city.¹⁴ In addition to the

The practice prior to Mayor Dorn's election was for a city official to expend his or her own personal funds and seek reimbursement. The spending resolution adopted with the city budget establishes the city policy for reimbursement of expenses. However, Mayor Dorn has bypassed this procedure and presently the city appears to have an arrangement with vendors that payment is made subsequent to the service rendered to the city. The City Council has later authorized payment of these bills.

There appears to be no basis for a criminal prosecution based on these expenditures. If Inglewood were a general law city these expenditures would clearly be improper, (85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.210), however, there is arguably some authority in the Inglewood City Charter to justify the expenditures for business lunches. The Ninety-second power states, "to do and perform any and all things and acts necessary or convenient in order to carry out or make effective or enjoy any and all of the rights, powers, objects and lor duties of said city." While we may disagree with the expenditures for meals and catering, there are no grounds to initiate a criminal prosecution.

4. Use of Credit Cards by City Officials

It came to our attention during this investigation that Inglewood officials may have had access to city-issued credit cards to pay city related expenses. We searched for City Council authorization for the credit cards and found none. Thus, although the use of credit cards dealt specifically with the expenditure of public funds, a matter within the City Council's purview, neither the City Council nor the public were ever given the opportunity to publicly debate the matter.

The City Administrator arranged to get the credit cards and they were issued to Mayor Dorn, City Administrator Joseph Rouzan, and Council member Lawrence Kirkley.¹⁶ Apparently, council member Kirkley needed a credit card to make travel arrangements

5. November 27, 2001, Inglewood City Council Meeting

At the regularly scheduled Inglewood City Council meeting on November 27,2001, the City Council, by a vote of 4-1 (Council member Judy Dunlap dissenting), voted to approve payment of a check to Mayor Dorn in the amount of $13,995.00.¹⁸ At the meeting Mayor Dorn stated that the $13,995.00 check was for funds he had not received since he had been elected to office, but had been entitled to receive. Mayor Dorn further stated that he had been unaware he was entitled to receive the funds. Generally, the City of Inglewood adopts a spending resolution as part of the process of adopting a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. ¹⁹ The resolution covers among other things: 1) Non-itemized monthly expense reimbursement for both the mayor and council, 2) automobile allowances for city employees, 3) per diem amount for employees and officials who conduct business outside the city, 4) expense reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses. The $13,995.00 payment issued to Mayor Dorn was for the non-itemized monthly expense reimbursement.

For the mayor, in fiscal year 2000-01, the monthly amount for non-itemized expenses was $300.00. Specifically, the section of the spending resolution authorizing payment stated as follows: "Each Council member and the Mayor incur daily monetary expense in the performance of their respective duties in amounts typically too small to individually keep records for reimbursement, i.e., sums less than $5.00. Expenses of this kind are routinely incurred by each Council member in the sum of $150 per month

Last November, Mayor Dorn stated he was unaware he was entitled to receive the funds and that he had not received the non-itemized expense reimbursement dating back to his election in April 1997. While we have no direct evidence to dispute the Mayor's claim we are somewhat skeptical of his claim. Mayor Dorn's signature is present on all spending resolutions since 1997, so it appears he was present and voted when the resolutions were approved. If Mayor Dorn were correct that he was unaware of the reimbursement it would appear that he did not necessarily have knowledge of all matters which came before the Inglewood City Council.

The funds used to pay the non-itemized expense reimbursement for the Mayor were contained in budget line item 001-010-1000-5010. Until fiscal year 2000-01, the un itemized expense reimbursement for the mayor and council was placed in the Mayor's budget. In fiscal year 2000-01, line item 5010 had an approved total of $6,000 for the Mayor's' special expenses, which would represent the $300/month payment and the $200/month maximum payment for itemized expenses.

Although Mayor Dorn did not apparently receive the reimbursement for unitemized monthly expenses, the funds allocated for that payment did not go unspent. Rather those funds were used primarily to pay expenditures for business lunches at the Forum, flowers, and catering for the Mayor's numerous advisory group meetings that were conducted often on a monthly basis. Funds were also drawn from a miscellaneous account in the city budget, line items 5008 (City Promotional Activities) and 5099 (Views/Constituents Com) to pay for those same expenditures.²⁰ While some may argue that this form of double payment for Mayor's Dorn's expenses would appear to constitute a violation of Penal Code section 424, this payment was approved by the Inglewood City Council. Our role is not to second guess the City Council on an action which appears to be authorized.

The second check, which was issued, a proposed lump sum payment of $12,840.00, to Mayor Dorn is more difficult to justify.²¹ The basis for that payment is similar to the argument advanced to support Mayor Dorn's claim for the non-itemized expense reimbursement. Mayor Dorn has said he was unaware he could submit itemized expense statements for which he could be reimbursed. Resolution 00-77, states, in pertinent part, "The Mayor. . .shall be reimbursed for the actual and necessary

There are a number of problems with the reimbursement under this section of the spending resolution. First, it appears such requests for reimbursement must be submitted within thirty days after the end of the calendar quarter. Mayor Dorn's request was far outside that thirty-day period. Mayor Dorn's attempt to portray his failure to seek reimbursement in a timely manner due to ignorance of this provision authorizing reimbursement is dubious, because there are numerous instances in the preceding years where Mayor Dorn sought and received reimbursement for itemized expenses^.22 The expenditure also does not appear to meet the criteria of an "actual and necessary expense" as required under Government Code section 36514.5. The phrase actual and necessary is not defined in the Government Code or the Inglewood city resolution. Generally, "[n]ecessity connotes that which is indispensable, necessary, unavoidable, because compelled, a requisite, required by social or legal compulsion or imperative need. Perhaps a good working definition is something that cannot be done without." 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 517,522 (1982), quoting California Teacher Association v. Board of Trustees (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 431,435.

The expense for which reimbursement was sought was legal fees incurred by Mayor Dorn in a possible action against city officials. We have no evidence to show that the City Attorney and/or City Council consented to hiring this law firm or subsequently agreed to expend city funds to pay the bills submitted by the law firm. Since it is clear that this expense reimbursement falls outside the guidelines promulgated by the City Council any payment would appear to be unauthorized. However, we decline to prosecute since the check, which had been issued was subsequently voided.

6. Mayor Dorn's travel expenses

Mayor Dorn has traveled throughout the continental United States to various conferences on behalf of Inglewood citizens. From the records we have reviewed their appears to be sufficient documentation which supports the reason for the Mayor's travel, and there appears to be no question the travel expenses incurred served a direct and substantial public purpose. There would be some concern regarding some of Mayor Dorn's travel expenses if Inglewood were a general law city. Mayor Dorn has

The final travel related issue is the Mayor's habit of seeking reimbursement for transportation expenses while outside the city of Inglewood. On a couple of occasions the Mayor hired a limousine while out of town on city business. While the city resolution does allow the use of private transportation there must be some justification for the use of that type of transportation. None appears on the expense reimbursement submitted by Mayor Dorn.²⁴ The mayor also sought reimbursement for use of taxies while on business outside of the city. This type of reimbursement does not appear to be appropriate since the daily per diem set forth in the city spending resolution covers meals, transportation and gratuities. (See Resolution 00-77, p. 1)

Conclusion

In our investigation we have not found that Mayor Dorn has used public funds for purely personal gain. What we have found is numerous instances where the mayor has spent public funds for arguably non-public purposes. However, because Inglewood is a charter city, elected officials are given much wider latitude in expending public funds. One point of concern uncovered by this investigation was the lack of oversight on city spending by those city officials charged with reviewing the expenditure of public funds. It is the responsibility of the Finance Department, and the City Administrator to monitor spending and audit the expenditure of public funds.²⁵

Another area of concern is the failure of the remaining members of the City Council to discharge their responsibilities under the city charter. Mayor Dorn has taken action on his own with no apparent legal authority (e.g., utilizing credit cards, issuing executive orders, and appointing volunteer commissions for the mayor's office.). He has also instituted new spending practices, which are inconsistent with prior procedures. With the exception of council member Judy Dunlap no one else has stepped forward to question Mayor Dorn's unauthorized unilateral exercise of power.²⁶ Under the city

The actions taken by Mayor Dorn may be an improper exercise of authority by his office, however, it is clear that they are not, for the most part, criminal in nature. We have noted a few areas which could be the basis for future prosecution if current practices are not changed, but the issues which are the basis for most of the complaints do not fall within the jurisdiction of our office and must be dealt with by the City Council, City Attorney and the residents of Inglewood.

Very truly yours,

STEVE COOLEY

District Attorney

By

Kerry L. White

Deputy District Attorney

Public Integrity Division

c: Emerline Foote, Esq
Interim City Attorney
City of Inglewood