Should Fresno taxpayers cover elected official’s legal defense? Councilmembers clash
The city of Fresno and its taxpayers will pay up to $600 per hour to defend Fresno City Council President Nelson Esparza in his defense against a felony extortion charge.
The agreement, obtained by The Bee, was signed this week with the Law Office of Mark W. Coleman, a prominent Fresno defense attorney who also is representing former Congressman TJ Cox in his federal case.
“This case is regarding alleged actions in my public capacity as a city official,” Esparza said in a statement to The Bee. “I continue to maintain my innocence and look forward to proving that in court.”
Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp’s office in July charged Esparza with one felony count of attempted extortion and one count of attempting to violate the city charter. The complaint alleges Esparza threatened the employment of former Fresno City Attorney Doug Sloan, who since left his post for a similar job in Santa Monica.
Esparza’s colleague, Councilmember Garry Bredefeld, first made the allegation publicly in May. Esparza sued Bredefeld for defamation but later dropped the case.
The city, in the recent past, paid to defend other elected officials in civil matters, such as former Mayor Lee Brand, former City Manager Wilma Quan, Mayor Jerry Dyer and Councilmembers Miguel Arias and Bredefeld.
The city also regularly pays for legal representation for city workers, such as police officers and bus drivers, for job-related matters.
Because this matter is criminal in nature, Bredefeld said the city should not pay for Esparza’s defense.
“I oppose the use of taxpayer money for the criminal defense of an elected official charged with a crime and will continue to do so,” Bredefeld said.
Esparza said the city routinely covers legal costs for alleged issues that arise from city business.
“This case just happens to be highly politicized by folks with a certain agenda,” Esparza said. “Who would want to work for the city with the risk that anytime someone lodged a complaint against them while doing their job, that they would be left high and dry by the organization they’re working on behalf of?”
Bredefeld called Esparza a hypocrite and said he lied about the reasons for dropping his defamation lawsuit.
“After I publicly exposed Nelson Esparza’s extortion attempt of the city attorney, he filed a bogus defamation lawsuit against me. Just two days before his lawsuit was due to be heard before the judge where it was expected to be thrown out of court, he dropped the suit and lied to the public stating he was concerned about taxpayer expenses defending against his lawsuit,” Bredefeld said.
“We have since filed a motion with the court asking that Esparza personally repay the taxpayers for the expenses incurred defending against his ridiculous lawsuit,” Bredefeld said. “Being the hypocrite that he is, now he has no problem having the taxpayers pay for his criminal defense.”
Call for investigation
Last week, GV Wire published a legal opinion for the city council, advising councilmembers to publicly disclose the agreement to pay for Esparza’s defense. The document was watermarked, noting it was attorney-client privileged.
Arias called for an investigation into a possible Brown Act violation and city ordinance violation.
“The recent publication of privileged attorney-client confidential records is unprecedented,” Arias said.
“It is a clear violation of the Brown Act and a crime under the city ordinance sponsored by Councilmembers Mike Karbassi and Bredefeld,” Arias said. “Since the district attorney has chosen to ignore this crime, the city will have to consider pursuing an external investigation and potential prosecution as called for in the said ordinance.”
Smittcamp declined to comment since Esparza’s case remains open.
Previously when The Bee published attorney-client privileged information, Bredefeld and Karbassi proposed an ordinance that could charge elected officials or employees with a misdemeanor if they leak confidential information or documents. The Fresno City Council passed the ordinance but called it redundant and poorly justified.
The district attorney last year investigated four councilmembers for an alleged Brown Act violation but never filed charges due to insufficient evidence. The Brown Act is California’s open meetings law that requires elected officials to conduct government business in public if a majority of the governing body is meeting.
This story was originally published September 16, 2022 at 7:00 AM.