Question for the legal eagles!

The Smiling Spotlight The Smiling Spotlight 4 Comments


If the common thought in the vapor is that “no woman is safe alone around Mayor Filner” wouldn’t it be prudent for the City Council to adopt a rule / law / policy that forbids the Mayor from meeting alone with any woman on city property or in his official capacity as mayor when off site? It may save millions in claims against the city and therefore has a nexus.

An urgency ordinance could take effect quickly.

But is something like that legally possible?

If it is and Filner vetoes it, an override should be easy.

If it is and the city council takes no action, do they become culpable?

Just askin.’


Comments 4

  1. I would guess that once a complaint is formally filed accusing Filner of inappropriate behavior, which then opens the City to liability, the city council would then have cause to try and limit further exposure. What action(s) they would be allowed to take, I don’t know. (I am not a lawyer. I have had cocktail, which may be causing me to dispense legal advice.)

  2. No. It would violate his 1st Amendment right to free association.


  3. You have a point. I do think the city council, or perhaps Mr. Ekard, could institute some form of policy similar to what the city attorney has been doing — requiring at least two staff members to attend any meeting with Filner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.