1973/02/2273-135
Covenant Presbyterian Church of Anaheim
124 North Emily Street
(Southeast Corner of Emily and Chartres Streets)
Anaheim, Califprn~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973. ~;30 P,M,
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned
Regular Session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCII2/EN: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John H. Dawson
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton E. Piersall
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: At the invitation of Mayor Dutton, Dr. Ralph Didier, Pastor
of the Covenant Presbyterian Church of Anaheim gave the following
invocation:
"Almighty God our Father, we thank you for the privilegeof being
free, of electing freely our public officials, of exercising
authority in the freedom of a free nation, we are grateful that
even these last few weeks we have seen some of our fellow countrymen
come to know after years of separation and privation, the wonderful
expression of being able to say and feel "I'm Free". Forgive us,
our Father, if we use our freedom wrongly and fail to exercise
responsibility with i~ so that freedom becomes license, and freedom
of speech becomes opportunity to destroy. We recognize that you
have given us this highest compliment by making us free, but that
in the compliment there lies beneath it the responsibility to speak
wisely, to act with integrity. But give to us t~day, especially, a
sense of the authentic and the human, and the loving, all of which
are only possible when freedom exists and which have that further
quality of extending freedom when they are followed. This we pray in
the name of Christ, our Lord, Amen.."
~: Mayor Pro Tem Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION - ~JRpOCH - PIERSALL: Mayor Dutton reported that this
meeting, adjourned from the regular meeting held Tuesday, January 20, 1973,
was for the specific and sole purpose of receiving and hearing the report
of the City Attorneys relative to their analysis of the material and informa-
tion received from the Grand Jury and District Attorney on land investment
by Ketth A. Murdoch and Thornton E. Piersall, and to inform the public as to
the truth of the matter. He further stated that the meeting was adjourned
to this location in order to accommodate more people than can be accommodated
in the Council Chambers of the City Hall.
In explaining the format to be used, Mayor Dutton advised
that the Attorneys in the City Attorney's Office have reviewed the material
from the Grand Jury and District Attorneys Office and at the conclusion of
their reports an opportunity will be offered to anyone who thinks they have
any information that would tend to confirm the allegattonsagainst Mr. Mmrdoch
and Mr. Piersall to come forward and so testify. Thereupon Mr. Geisler was
requested to submit and read his report.
J0$gF/ B.-0gI$~ 7 pISOL0~: In connection with this, ~r. Mayor, prior to
report I would like to make a disclosure under the ethics code, I don't really
think it's applicable but'.{ do feel if there's any question on disclosure that
it should be made, that is the fact that I, as a limited partner, have an in-
vestment,tn a piece of property up in Oregon in whichMr. Piarsall also has
an investment, as a limited partner, and in which Mr. Watts also has an in-
vestment, he actually is a general partner, but its a very limited area of
partnership, the prim~;partner is a former en~loYee Doug Ogden,-he is in Oregon.
As I recall, I don't remember whether I knew that Mr. Plersall was also
investing when I invested or not, it wouldn't have m~de any difference to
me whether he was; but so that there's no question that this is true, it
73-136
Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1973, 1:30 p.M
certainly would not influence my opinion one way or another whether he went
broke or lost his money, it would not involve or bother that investment in the
least. Now I'll make my report.
MR, JOSEPH B, GEISLER - REPORT:
TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM:
February 22, 1973
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY,
JOSEPH B. GEISLER
RE: Analyses of Land Investments by Keith Murdoch
and Thornton E. Piersall
On June 23, 1972, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times
written by W. B. Rood and Larry Pryor. This article sets forth the statis-
tical circumstances in connection with several specific transactions of in-
vestment in land in and around the City of Anaheim by Keith Murdoch and
Thornton E. Piersall. The statistical facts in connection with the trans-
actions were basically correct and to the best of my knowledge have not been
refuted by either Mr. Mnrdoch or Mr. Piersall. In each of the land investments,
a profit was made in connection with the purchase and sale except on two parcels
which have not yet been sold but where a profit is likely to be made upon ulti-
mate sale.
The article also made several allegations in connection with the land
investments and indicated that the land investments were improper and illegal.
Based upon the allegations of the article, the City Council requested
the Orange County Grand Jury to investigate the allegations to determine whether
or not there was merit to the allegations and whether action should be taken
against the City officials involved.
The Orange County Grand Jury immediately specified they would investi-
gate the allegations and, therefore, pending the investigation by the Orange
County Grand Jury, this office made no comment regarding the allegations. After
approximately six months of handling some type of investigation, the Grand Jury
reported that they had found no felony violations and if there had been any
misdemeanor violations, that such were outlawed by the Statute of Limitations
and that they had no further jurisdiction in connection with the matter but they
did recommend that a thorough investigation be made by the City Attorney's office
or, if he refused, that it be turned over to the Attorney General for investiga-
tion. The Grand Jury offered to turn their files over to the City Attorney or
Attorney General for their use in connection with any such investigation.
At the request of the City Council, this office has made a thorough
and complete analysis of the investigation and of all documents turned over by
the Orange County Grand Jury including the investigation and recommendation of
the District Attorney's office.
Since at the time this office was directed to make the analysis, some
question was raised as to my objectivity because of my close relationship with
Keith Murdoch and Thorny Piersall, I decided that the report should be conducted
with the highest degree of objectivity and I therefore divided .the report among
three of the top attorneys in this office for analysis. Two land transactions
each were to be reported upon by Mr. John Dawson, Mr. Alan Watts and Mr. William
Hopkins. I submit herewith the three reports, and I am happy'to state that each
of these investigations reports that there wes no illegality or wrongdoing in
connection ~ith any of the land transactions. It should be noted that none of
the conclusions of the Attorneys are based upon technicalities (such as Statute
of Limitations) to determine that there are no violations of law. In each of
the transactions, all appropriate statutes have been analyzed to determine
whether there was a violation of the statute and in those instances where the
statute was not yet in effect, an analysis of whether there would'have been a
violation had the statute been in effect. The conclusion drawn in all instances
is that there ~as no violations of any of the statutes then or now existing.
73-137
Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MI~S - February 22, 1973. 1:30 ~.M
I have carefully reviewed the materials furnished through the
auspices of the Grand Jury and have reviewed the opinions of Messrs. Dawson,
Watts and Hopkins and am in full accord with the analyses and conclusions
reached by each of them.
One other land investment was reported in the newspaper article and
I will make comment upon such transaction. This is a transaction in which
Mr. Piersall was an investor as a limited partner on property owned by a
partnership at Euclid Street south of Broadway and was processed before the
City for zoning for commercial and multiple family use in 1966. The article
made no suggestion of impropriety in connection with this transaction and,
unless something very unusual occurred in connection with it, which is not
mentioned in the article, there would be no violation of any of the statutes
referred to and attached as the Appendix to this report. Section 1.01.400 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code of Ethics) was not in effect at the time and
compliance with it would therefore have been unnecessary. In connection with
the Code of Ethics, I would point out that the process of having property,
owned by an officer or employee of the City, rezoned in the City of Anaheim
would not be a violation of such Code of Ethics. Nothing in the Code of
Ethics prohibits the purchase and sale of property in the City of Anaheim as
an investment or otherwise and there is serious question in my mind whether
such restriction could be constitutionally enacted. The Code of Ethics does,
however, require disclosure of a financial interest under certain circum-
stances. Regarding an "employee" -- "who has a financial or other special
interest in a matter before the City Council or any board, commission, or
committee" (construed to mean City of Anaheim City Council, or a board,
commission or committee of the City of Anaheim -- see Mr. Watts' opinion;
also see Section 1500 of the City Charter, which reads in part .'City' is
City of Anaheim and 'depaNtment,' 'board,' 'comm_~ssion,' 'aKenc¥.' 'officer,'
or 'employee.' is a department, board, commission, aKenc¥, officer or employee
as the case may be of the City of Anaheim) "and who participates in discussion
with or gives an official opinion to the Council, or to such board, commission
or committee relating to such matter, shall disclose on the records of the
Council or such board, commission, or cormntttee, as the case may be, the
nature and extent of such interest."
In connection with the zoning action of the partnership "Grand
Marnier," since Mr. Piersall was a limited partner, he would not appear be-
fore the Planning Commission or the City Council representing the partnership
and in the ordinary course of his duties, he would not appear before either
body to render an official opinion, therefore, the disclosure part of the -
Code of Ethics would not apply.
In connection with Section 1.O1.400(h) "Disclosure of Interest" --
although the statutory rule is that a statute carrying a penal remedy must
be strictly construed and the construction above gtvenmeets that criteria,
nevertheless, it would be my opinion that a broader construction would be in
the best interests of the spirit of the Code of Ethics and that in the future
that any departmer~t head who has a financial or special interest in property
which comes up for zoning action should disclose such financial or special
interest before the Planning Co~,,ission and City Council regardless of his
personal involvement in the matter before such bodies. Almost every depart-
ment head, directly or indirectly, advises the City Council and perhaps the
Planning Commission in connection with zoning and such disclosure would be
in order if not required. This broad interpretation is in keeping with the
concept of the Code of Ethics and would appear to be the best method to
avoid suspicion.
I take this opportunity to state that in my opinion Section 1.01.400
is a very strict Code of Ethics statute and is much stronger than the State
law on the general subject. The best safeguard, however, is to have honest
and dedicated men involved in the City's business. In my opinion, we in the
City of Anaheim have always been fortunate to have such men involved in City
business and I hope that such will continue.
Jl~: ]h
/SlJoee~h B. C~tal~r
JOSEPH B. ~EISLER
City'AttorneY
73-138
Aaaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22. 1973. 1:30 P.M,
Mayor Dutton called for questions from the Council. There being
none, invited John H. Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, to present his report.
MR. JOHN H, DAWSON - REPORT:
TO: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
February 22, 1973
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
JOHN H. DAWSON
RE: Report to City Council on Alleged Misconduct of
City Manager and Director of Public Works
By direction of the City Council of the City of Anaheim, the City
Attorney has been directed to review the materials considered by the office of
the District Attorney and the Orange County Grand Jury in their consideration
of the article in the Los Angeles Times under date of June 23, 1972. The Times
article set forth certain facts and indicated thereby that Keith F~rdoch, City
Manager, and Thornton Ptersall, Director of Public Works, had wrongfully prof-
ited personally because of secret or confidential information made available
to them because of their respective positions and not generally available'to
the public. Most of the factual information set forth in the article can be
documented, but the conclusions draw~ therefrom are the subject matter of this
inquiry. The term "factual information" is used cautiously and advisedly as
illustrated by the second of a series of statements following the introductory
sentence: "The Times has learned:"
The statement to which we refer appears in the Times as follows:
" Less than two weeks after an aerospace firm confided in Murdoch
about negotiations for purchase of a plant site in an agricultural
area of the city, Murdoch and two partners entered into escrow for
purchase of a nearby parcel that was later purchased for expansion
of the firm."
Accurately stated, the situation should have been reported:
" Less than two weeks after an aerospace firm, North American
Aviation, Auto~etics Division, made its official public announcement
in the Santa Aha Register and the Anaheim Bulletin (See Appendix,
page 9) of its purchase of an 80 acre plant site in Anaheim, Phirdoch
and two partners entered into escrow for the purchase of a parcel
approximately a half a mile from the North American purchase which
they later sold to a real estate broker who was accumulating land
for North American Awlation."
The foregoing factual statement, divorced of innuendo and inaccuracies,
does not raise the questions of propriety and possible conflicts of interest
inherent in the statement as it appeared. We regret to state that upon a
thorough reading of the Times article, we find ma~y facts stated in the light
most favorable to the reporters' obvious intent as expressed in the headline:
INSIDE INFORMATION. It shall be the purpose of this office to review each of
the incidents cited in the Times article and to which the Orange County Grand
Jury directed its inquiry. We have reviewed the information turned over to
US by the District Attorney's Office and we co~nend that office for the
thoroushness of its investisation. We have considered the information thus
gained, along with additional facts we were able to ob=sin, aS =ha~ informa-
tion might have bearing upon the law applicable to the subject matter before us.
For the convenience of the City Council and any others ~o might
concern themselves with this report, we have attached to each copy thereof an
Appendix which we feel includes the law~hich is applicable. This has been
done so that the actual statutes, code and charter may be considered from its
text. For our convenience and a more thorough review of the subject matter,
the transactions subject to criticism and cogent have been divided among the
staff with the City Attorney coordinating the whole and smrizin~ the con-
clusions we all have reached.
73-139
Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973. 1:30 P.M.
The transactions to which reference is made are considered and are
numbered in the order and manner set forth on the map attached to the Los
Angeles Times article by W. B. Rood and Larry Pryor under date of June 23,
1972. (Appendix, page 10). They are: (1) Murdoch-DeDapper-Walker adjacent
to Autonetics, 1/26/60; (2) Tierra de Oro-Piersall, 5/5/64; (3) Tierra de
Oro-Ptersall, 8/20/65; (4) Jay Enterprises-DeDapper-Walker-Murdoch, 7/7/61;
(5) Barranca del Gazapo-Piersall, 3/5/69; (6) M~rdoch-Piersall-Krein and
three others, 11/15/65.
(1) Murdoch-DeDapper-Walker, adjacent to
Autonetics - 1/26/60
The transaction to which the Times makes reference as noted above
is documented by a deed from Helen Bumstead to DeDapper, Mmrdoch and Walker
and their respective wives with an undivided one-third interest in each of
the couples. The deed was executed on January 26, 1960 and recorded February
2, 1960 in Book 5082, Page 267, Official Records of Orange County. The
escrow through which the transaction was handled was opened on January 15,
1960.
This purchase was not made "Less than two weeks after an aerospace
firm confided in Murdoch," but escrow was opened one week following, formal
announcement by officials of North American Aviation of its Purchase of 80
acres of land in Anaheim for its Autonetics Division. (See Appendix, page 9)
Nor was the purchase one of a "nearby parcel," but rather the property in
which Mr. Mnrdoch acquired a one-third interest was about as far from the
Autonettcs purchase as the City Hall is from the Anaheim Santa Fe Railway
Station. It is not the purpose of this report to attempt to refute the Times
article, but merely to point to some of the inaccurate statements which are
wont to flow from the pen of staff correspondents writing to 'sway opinion
rather than to report facts objectively.
Although the parcel in question was "later purchased for expansion
of the firm," it was not sold by F~rdoch and his associates to North American.
A grant dee~ dated August 3, 1960 from DeDapper, Ma~rdoch and Walker and their
respective wives to Greg L. Carter, a real estate broker was recorded August
12, 1960 in Book 5371, Page 440, Official Records of Orange County. Mr.
Murdoch and his associates did profit from the sale of this parcel of land.
Legal Considera~%ons of the Above Purchase and Sal-
'Con~ents will be made in this section as to the applicability or
inapplicability of each of the sections of the Governmeat Code set forth in
the Appendix and all references to sections hereafter made shall be to the
Govermment Code unless otherwise stated. An effort has been made to include
all sections which deal with conflict of interest and disclosure, although
most, if not all of them, have no application to the above transaction.
Sect$ons 1090 and 1091. (Appendix, page 1) Each of these sections were in
force at the time of the purchase and later sale of the property discussed
above, having been first enacted in 1943. However, each deals with a situa-
tion where the interest, if any, is in a co~tract involved in the officer's
official capacity or with a body or board of which he is a member. The con-
tract, to the extent a sale amd purchase of real property may be considered
a contract in its broad sense, was not in Murdoch's official capacity and
obviously he was not nor has he been a member of a body or board which could
be involved.
Secti0n8 1091.1 a~d 1091.5. (Appendix, page 2) Section 1091.1, although in
force at the time of the transaction, again applies to interests in q. Qntracts
and requires disclosure if the official intends to subdivide his land. Ob-
viously no subdivisionw~s here involved nor were there any dealings between
Nurdoch and any body or board. Section 1091.5 sets forth exceptions to the
conflict of interest rule where that interest is in a contract. Ho contract
within the purview of the statute is here involved.
Sections 1120 and 11~1. (Appendix, page 3) Neither of these sections had
been enacted into law at the time of the ltmrdoch'transaCtion referred to
above and hence could not be made retroactively effective to apply to him.
Suffice it to say that disclosure can act as a double-edsed sword by being
73-140
Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - F~bruar¥ 22. 1973. 1;30 P,M,
of substantial benefit to the one making the disclosure when his friends on
the body or board feel in the mood to reward him in some way. Section 1121,
dealing with impressing gains and profits, if it had been enacted at the time
of this transaction, would not apply as it is limited to those instances where
the enhancement of the value of the property is caused by governmental action.
Such was not the case here.
t~. (Appendix, page 8) Here we are concerned with inconsistent,
incompatible or conflicting employment, activity, or enterprise. The purchase
and resale of property on his ow~ behalf could only fit into the terms of
Section 1126 if it in fact was in conflict with the activities of the City of
Anaheim, The Section is more concerned with employment. The possible con-
flict as to enterprise activity would appear to be limited to those instances
where "any part of his efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer,
employee, board or commission of his employing body,***." Incidentially, this
Section was added by the Statutes of 1971.
Section 1,01,400 Anaheim Municipal Cod~. (Appendix, page 4-6 inc.) This is
the so-called "Code of Ethics" Ordinance. It was adopted February 24, 1970
and became effective thirty days thereafter. Although not in effect at the
time of the transaction under consideration, it would not apply inasmuch as
the purchase and sale of land here involved did not come before any official
body of the City. Furthermore, the information of the transaction was not
confidential in any way -- the press having carried the North Amerctan an-
councement on January 8, 1960.
Section 70~., Charter of the City of Anaheim. (Appendix, page 7) The Anaheim
City Charter was effective on January 14, 1965 upon its approval by the Cali-
fornia State Legislature. The transaction under discussion had been concluded
on August 3, 1960. However, Section 708 of the City Charter is headed: "Illegal
Contract, Financial Interest." Its scope is limited to "any contract, sale or
transaction to which the City is a party and which comes before said officer or
employee, or member of any board or commission, or the department or office of
the City with which he is connected, ~r official action. None of the action
here involved concerned the City or any of its bodies, boards or commissions.
In summary, the transaction designsted "M~rdoch-DeDapper-Walker''
where M~rdoch acquired a one-third interest in property and later sold it to
a real estate broker at a profit did not, in our opinion, involve any violation
of law. The coming of the Autonetics Division of North American was public
knowledge before he acquired the property and the fact that it eventually
wound up as part of the.~utonetics complex does not make it a tainted trans-
action. As far as disclosure is concerned, it is difficult to say to whom
such disclosure should be made. Certainly not the City of Anaheim since the
transaction involved no dealings with the City. M~rdoch was not profiting
from confidential or secret knowledge coming to him because of his position
with the City. The knowledge of North American's move to Anaheim was publicly
announced -- not by the City, but by the officials of North Americam.
(2) Tierra de Oro-Pie~$all, ~/6/64
The transaction to which the Times article refers as indicated above
(except that the deed date is May 6, 1964 instead of May 5, 1964) was a purchase
of 20.06 acres of land fronting on Walnut Avenue in the Northeast area of
Anaheim. Before going into any details of this transaction, we will consider
the Limited Partnership known as Tierra de Oro. This partnership was formed
in 1964 and consisted of Carriage. Estates Sales Corporation as the C~neral
Partner and seven Limited Partners of which ~hornton E. Plersall was one~
holding a 4/28th interest. The Krant deed to the property in question was
taken in the ~ame of "Tierra de Oro, a Partnership" and the Deed of Trust of
even date called out "Tierra de Oro, a Limited Partnership." Whe~wa stop to
analyze any possible wron~-doin$ on the part of Mr. Piersall, we must consider
the legal effect and the practical effect of a Limited Partnership. Only the
General Partner can act on behalf of the Partnership. The limited Partners
become inactive members whose only interest and only liability is their con-
tribution. Mr. Piersall invested $10,300 for a 4/28th interest. No Limited
Partner can take part in the transactions of the Limited Partnership without
thereby becomin~ a General Partner subject to full general liability. There
is no evidence that Hr. Piersall became a General Partner and when'the property
/'s- 14J
~aheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, 1:30 P,M
i.n question was deeded to the Orange County Water District on June 1.8, 1965,
the deed was signed by the General Partner as noted above.
The Orange County Grand Jury made the following suggestion in its
letter making material available to this office:
"Among the matters that the Jury feels merit your special attention
are the following:
". the timetable for purchase by the Orange County Water
District of land, including Tierro (sic) de Oro Property,
for a spreading basin;"
This office has learned through Milford Dahl, Attorney for the
Orange County Water District, and from an inspection of certain of the Water
District's records that in the 1950's, one Paul Bailey, then Engineer for the
District, determined that water spreading in the Santa Ana River basin was
both feasible and desirable. As a result the spreading area, now commonly
known as Anaheim Lake, was acquired. It was further determined that the
original acquisition in 1956 was not enough and that other areas outside of
the River and north of the North Bank should be included as additional
spreading basins.
Paul Bailey and later John Toups, presently Engineer for the Orange
County Water District, followed the course of the old river in an effort to
block out additional land. It was decided to attempt to acquire property in
the vicinity of the existing Consolidated Rock Company gravel pits because
Orange County Water District could eventually take them over.
Tierra de Oro had no advance knowledge of the intentions of the
Orange County Water District until after actual threat of condemnation.
Mr. Dahl stated that all dealings with Tierra de Oro (and the matter was
settled without going through with the eminent domain proceedings) were
through Dudley Frank, President of Carriage Estates Sales Corporation, the
General Partner of Tierra de Oro. Mr. Frank was very upset about the con-
demnation action as he had other plans for the property. However, the prop-
erty was sold to Orange County Water District by partnership deed dated June
18, 1965, over a year from the date of its original acquisition by Tierra de
Oro. The Limited Partnership made a gross profit of approximately $51,000.
It should be pointed out that there exists in the offices of the
Orange County Road Department a Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Long prior
to the May of 1964 when Tierra de Oro bought the 20.06 acres, the Master
Plan included the projection of La Palma Avenue in an easterly direction at
least as far as Imperial Highway. It is true that the precise alignment had
not been determined, but the general location of the proposed extension was
most certainly public knowledge.
The Times article, by way of suggestion of hankey-pankey and the
"Inside Information" towards which the article is slanted, states:
"The La Palma alignment drawn up by Piersall's staff was recommended
for approval by the City Planning Commission on Sept. 14, 1964 -- four
months after Tierra de Oro bought its property. The alignment was
approved by the City Council the following Oct. 20."
The foregoing would indicate that the alignment which was adopted was de-
signed by and pressed for by Mr. Piersall and his staff for the principal
purpose of serving the Tierra de Oro property. We learned, however, that
the greatest pressure for the present alignment of La Palma in that area
was made by John Toups, Engineer, and Howard Crooke, Manager, of the Orange
County Water District. Any other alignment would cut through the middle of
the blocked out area (which incidentially included Tierra de Oro's 20+ acres)
that the District would condemn for its spreading basin purposes. In truth
and in fact either alignment of La Palma would be of equal benefit to the
Tierra de Oro property. We should further not lose sight of the fact that
the recommendation of the Planning Commission was after a public hearing and
the approval of the City Council followed a public hearing.
142
Anaheim, Cali. fornia- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
In a letter from Howard Crooke to Milford Dahl concerning the notice
of a public hearing on the alignment of La Palma before the Anaheim Planning
Commission dated June 7, 1965, the last paragraph should be quoted in full:
"Please notice on the attached copy that the alignment as proposed
(which is the same as was being used by. the County Road Department
as much as a year .ago) would leave only a very small portion of the
land of Tierra de Oro on the Northerly side of t~l~e proposed freeway
alignment."
The alignment to which Mr. Crooke refers was the o~e finally adopted. We would
conclude, therefore, that instead of Mr. Piersall and his staff diligently de-
signing a precise alignment which would be of the greatest benefit to the Tierra
de Oro holdings, he followed the Orange County Road Department's alignment of
over a year before.
With all the public hearings held on the alignment of La Palma Avenue
to which reference has been made, it is hard to conceive of a situation where
the extension of La Palma and its interim and ultimate alignment were not part
and parcel of the public domain.
Legal Considerations of the Above Purchase and Sale
For the most part, the legal considerations of this transaction and
of the previous one relating to Mr. Murdoch are identical. Rather than to
repeat our comments Section by Section, we will point out the similarities and
the differences.
The comments on the Murdoch transaction as they relate to Sections
1090, 1091, 1091.1 and 1091.5 are the same as they relate to Mr. Piersall's
investment as a Limited Partner in Tierra de Oro.
Subject to the comment that it was added by the Statutes of 1970, it
should be pointed out that Section 1121, dealing with impressing gains or profits
from the sale of property with trust, does not apply in the Tierra de Oro-Pier-
sall (5/5/64) transaction. In the first place, it must be shown that the value
of the property was "enhanced by governmental action." There is no showing of
this as far as we could ascertain, especially in the light of the fact that the
sale was in compromise of eminent domain litigation (Orange County Water District
vs. Dankler, et al., Orange County Superior Court No. 134478) in which Tierra de
Oro received only the fair market value of the property and certainly not any
speculative enhancement from any cause.
In the second place, under Section 1121, the enhancement, if any, must
have been imparted to the employee by reason of his public office or employment,
and was not a matter of public record. Here we can conceive of no greater
matter of public record than when the very early extension of La Palma Avenue
appeared on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the several precise plans
of which were bandied about the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim. Through
a long series of public hearings before planning commissions and the respective
legislative bodies of Orange County and the City of Anaheim, the public became
involved.
The comments heretofore made as to Section 1126 apply here with equal
force. As to the application of the "Code of Ethics" Ordinance (Appendix, page 4),
the comments on the Piersall transaction are the same as on the Murdoch transac-
tion except to point out that the whole problem of the alignment of La Palma
Avenue had been in the realm of public knowledge long before and long after the
transaction and th~ influence, i~ any, on the alignment as adopted, was espoused
not by Mr. Piersall or his staff but rather by the Orange County Water District
in its effort to protect a potential spreading basin which it now operates.
Section 708, Charter of City of Anaheim (Appendix, page 7) The Tierra de Oro
transaction did not fall within the purview of Section 708 of the City Charter
(either the purchase or sale of the 20.06 acres) because it never came before
Mr. Piersall, or his department or any board, commission or body of the City.
The Times and, we suspect, the Grand Jury, would have us believe that the real
wrongdoing was in bringing influence to bear on the alignment before all of the
various bodies which held public hearings on the matter. This could be possible
73- 143
_Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M
if it were not for the fact that the alignment adopted was the old Orange County
alignment of over a year before and the sale was not in any way influenced by
that alignment, but rather by the accident that it lay in the area long deter-
mined to be necessary to the Orange County Water District for its spreading
basin expansion.
In concluding our consideration of this phase of the investigation
by this office, it should again be pointed out that Mr. Piersall was merely an
investing limited Partner with no say as to what would be purchased or where
or what would be sold, to whom or when. To consider it in any other light
would do disservice to the Uniform Limited Partnership Act and all of the
principles therein set forth.
JHD:jh
/S/John H. Dawson
JOHI~ H. DAWSON
Assistant City Attorney
Mayor Dutton called for questions from the Council. There being
none, invited William P. Hopkins, Deputy City Attorney, to present his report.
MR, WILLIAM p, HOPKINS - REPORT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
February 22, 1973
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
WILLIAM P. HOPKINS
SUBJECT:
Analysis of Investigative Data Concerning
TIERRA DE ORO-PIERSALL, (8-20-65) and JAY
ENTERPRISES-DE DAPPER-WALKER-P~JRDOCH,
(7- 7- 61)
On June 23, 1972, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy article
written by W. B. Rood and Larry Pryor with the heading, "2 ANAHEIM OFFICIALS
PROFIT ON LAND SALES".
As a part of this article, there appeared a map of the Anaheim area
prepared for the Times by Gus Keller. There appeared on the above map six
numbers at Various locations. Below the map was a caption indicating that the
"numbers indicate speculative land purchases made by Anaheim City Manager Keith
Murdoch and Public Works Director Thornton E. Piersall over the past 12 years."
Following this statement the caption lists the numbers and relates the numbers
appearing on the map to certain captions which are later referred to in the
article.
As requested, this analysis covers only numbers 3 and 4, which are
identified as follows:
3) Tierra de Oro-Piersall, 8/20/65;
4) Jay Enterprises - De Dapper-Walker-Murdoch, 7/7/61.
Briefly summarized from the above cited newspaper article and the
investigative data of the District Attorney's Office, Transactions No. 3 and
No. 4 are as follows:
~o. 3. TIERRA DE ORQ - PIERSALL 8/20/65
Tierra De Oro was a limited partnership formed in 1964. Papers of
partnership were filed in Orange County Recorder's Office on August 7, 1964.
Character of the business was investment in real estate. Principal place of
business - Santa Aha, California.
General partner of the partnership was Carriage Estat~ Sales Corpora-
tion, a holding of Mr. Dudley Frank. Limited partners consisted of GLA Develop-
ment Company, William F. Johnson, P.A.L.S., Inc., Thornton E. Piersall, Marguerite
Kaiser, Charles J. Lusin, Cedric A. White and David A1pert. Mr. Piersall invested
$10,300 into this partnership giving him.a 4/28th's interest.
73- 144
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - Febru'ary 22, 1972, 1;30 P.M,
Transaction No. 3 was a purchase made on August 20, 1965, by the
Tierra De Oro partnership of 19.15 acres from Frederick J. Gaspard, et al.
for an estimated $280,000. '
The 19.15 acres were sold to Consolidated Rock Products Co. on
June 16, 1967. Four individual lots were withheld on this purchase and
were subsequently sold off. The Los Angeles Times article stated that,
based on tax stamps on recorded deeds, Tierra De Oro made a gross profit
of $127,773 on this transaction.
It should be noted that Mr. Piersall was only a limited partner
and, as such, would be more in the position of an investor without control
of the purchases or operations of the partnership as would a general partner.
The limited partner only gets his share based on his investment, which was
reported to be 4/28th's in this case. There is no evidence indicating that
Mr. Piersall instigated any of the partnership purchases. Presumably, such
decisions were made by the general partner.
JAY ENTERPRISES - DE DAPPER-WALKER-MURDOCH
7/7/61
Jay Enterprises was a limited partnership and a certificate of
limited partnership was filed with the County Recorder on September 29, 1961
General partners were Jay W. De Dapper, Richard W. Gay and William
G. Walker. Limited partners were Keith Murdoch (investment of $6,000 for a
5% interest), William H. Cies, Shirley D. Richman, Richard D. Nolan, Marlys
Rold, Richard D. Rold, Vernon L. Rold, Dorothy I. Rold, Delmar Pebley, Joe R.
Scholz, Joe P. Lemons and Francis W. Elliott. This partnership was to exist
for ten years unless 60% total capital of the partnership agrees to dissolve
sooner.
As a partnership, Jay Enterprises purchased a 59-acre plot of land
in East Anaheim, south of Orangethorpe Avenue and east of Lakeview Avenue.
The property was purchased from F. E. and Gladys Campbell, husband and wife,
for a reported $450,000. This purchase was made on July 7, 1961.
The land was subsequently sold by Jay Enterprises to the Santa Fe
Land Development Company on November 30, 1964 for a reported $930,000. At
the time of the purchase, this land was in county territory with annexation
proceedings pending.
Jay Enterprises was dissolved on January 15, 1965, and dissolution
of the limited partnership was recorded in the Orange County Recorder's
Office in Book No. 7425 on February 25, 1965.
As in the case of Transaction No. 3, it should be noted that Mr.
Murdoch was only a limited partner and, as such, would be more in the posi-
tion of an investor without control of the purchases or operations of the
partnership, as would a general partner. The limited partner would only
get his share based on his investment, which, in Mr. Murdoch's case in
Transaction No. 4, was reported to be a 5% interest. There is no evidence
indicating that Mr. Murdoch instigated any of the partnership purchases.
Presumably, the decisions as to what land to purchase were made by the
general partners.
I~EGALANALYSIS
This analysis of the above stated transactions has been made with
the objective of determining whether or not said transactions involved any
violations of Federal, State or City laws or the provisions of the Charter
of the City of Anaheim.
The Los Angeles Times article of June 23, 1972, implies that the
above transactions involved some type of conflict of interest and a require-
ment for disclosure of interest in the subject transactions, hence the laws
applicable to conflicts of interest, disclosure, code of ethics, etc.,
have been analyzed in connection with the newspaper article and the inves-
tigative data obtained for the Orange County Grand Jury by the investigative
staff of the Orange County District Attorney.
73-145
Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P,M,
There is no evidence contained in the newspaper article or the
District Attorney's investigative reports that indicate that any violation
of a federal law is involved in above transactions numbered 3 and 4.
California Government Code, Division 4, entitled, .Public Officers
and Employees, contains a number of sections pertaining to public officers
and employees and prohibitions applicable to specified officers, e.g., Section
1090, Conflicts of Interest; Section 1120, Disclosure; Section 1126, Incon-
sistent Incompatible Activities, etc. (See Appendices)
It is important to note that: Transaction No. 3, Tierra de Oro -
Piersall, began on 8/20/65 and was substantially concluded on or about June 16,
1967 by the sale of the 19.15 acres to Consolidated Rock. Also, Transaction
No. 4, Jay Enterprises, began on July 7, 1961, and was substantially concluded
on November 30, 1964, by sale of the land to Santa Fe Land Development Company.
Government Code Section 1090 (see Appendix, Page 1) was in effect at
the time of the Transactions designated as No. 3 and No. 4, above; however,
this section prohibits city officers and employees from being "financially
interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity or by any
body or board of which they are members." It also prohibits city officers or
employees from being "purchasers at any sale, or vendors at any purchase made
by them in their official capacity."
There is no evidence reported that the transactions designated as
No. 3 or No. 4 involved any contract with the City of Anaheim or that Mr.
Murdoch or Mr. Piersall were involved in any way with a purchase or sale
conducted by the City of Anaheim. There is no evidence of a violation of
Government Code Section 1090.
Government Code Section 1091, (see Appendix, Page 1) deals with
Remote interest of an officer and provides generally that "an officer shall
not be deemed to be interested in a contract entered into by a body or board
of which he is a member within the meaning of this article if he has only a
remote interest in the contract .... "
There is no evidence reported concerning transactions No. 3 or No. 4
that indicates that Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall were interested in any contract
with the City, nor that they were members of a body or board entering into
contracts on behalf of the City of Anaheim.
With reference to Government Code Sections 1091.1 and 1091.5, (see
Appendix, Page 2) there is no evidence reported that indicates that these
sections would be applicable to Transactions No. 3 or No. 4, i.e., no contract
with the City of Anaheim was involved.
Government Code Section 1120, (see Appendix, Page 3) entitled,
Disclosure, was not passed by the California Legislature until 1967; hence,
it would not have been in effect during the period involving Transactions
No. 3 and No. 4. In any event, it would not have been applicable since it
pertains to members of governing bodies, boards and commissions of any local
public agency. There is no evidence that either Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall
served as members of~governing bodies, boards or commissions during the period
involved herein.
Government Code Section 1121 (see Appendix, Page 3) pertains to
impressin~ mains or profits from sale of property with trust and was not added
to the Government Code until 1970; hence, it would not have been in effect
during the period involvin§ Transactions No. 3 and No. 4. In any event, the
provisions of Section 1121 refer to transactions that were "not a matter of
public record." Inasmuch as the evidence on hand indicates that the extension
of La Palma Avenue had been extensively discussed, both before and after July
1961, at public meetings of the Anaheim City Council, the Anaheim City Planning
Commission and Orange County Planning Commission, and also that the La Palma
extension was a part of a Master Arterial Highway Plan, it cannot be stated
that the proposed improvements in the areas near Transactions No. 3 and No. 4
were "not a matter of public record." The proposed improvements in the area
were clearly matters of public record and were the subject of much public
discussion, hence it is our opinion that Government Code Section 1121 would
not have been applicable to Transaction No. 3 or No. 4, even if it had been in
effect prior to 1970.
73-146
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22,.1973, 1:30 P.M
Government Code Section 1126 (see Appendix, Page 8) concerning
inconsistent, incompatible or conflicting employment, etc., .bY local agency,
officer or employee was not added to the Code until 1971; hence, it was not
in effect during the period involving Transaction No. 3 or No. 4. In any
event, there is no evidence that either Mr. Piersall or Mr. Murdoch were
engaged as employees by Jay Enterprises or Tierra de Oro. Their participa-
tion was limited to participation in the investment as limited partners.
Under the circumstances, Government Code Section 1126 would not have been
applicable to Transaction No. 3 and No. 4, even if it had been in effect
prior to 1971.
The Charter of the City of Anaheim was approved by the California
State Legislature on January 14, 1965, and contains a Section 708 (see
Appendix, Page 7) headed, "Illegal Contract, Financial Interest." Section
708 provides that "no member of the City Council shall have a financial interest,
directly or indirectly, in any contract, sale or transaction to which the
City is a party and neither shall any officer or employee, or member of any
board or commission, have an interest in any contract, sale or transaction
to which the City is a party and which comes before said officer or employee,
or member of any board or commission, or the department or office of the
City with which he is connected for official action .... "
There is no evidence related to Transaction No. 3 or No. 4 indica-
ting that Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall was involved with any contract, sale,
etc. to which the City was a party; hence, there is no violation of the
Charter of the City of Anaheim.
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.01.400 (see Appendix, Pages 4-6)
is entitled, "Code of ethics for public officers and employees." Section
1.01.400 was passed by the City Council of the City of Anaheim (Ordinance
No. 2783) in February, 1970; hence, this section of the Anaheim Municipal
Code was not in effect during the period involving Transactions No. 3 and
No. 4.
Although Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.01.400 was not in effect
during the period involving Transactions No. 3 and No. 4, the provisions of
this Section would not have been applicable since these transactions did
not come before the City Council or any official commission, board, etc. of
the City of Anaheim.
There is no evidence that either Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall gave
any official opinion to the City Council or any board, commission or com-
mittee of the City of Anaheim that affected the status of Transactions
No. 3 or No. 4., nor that they were members of such official commissions,
boards, etc.
Also, with reference to Section 1.01.400, there is no evidence
that Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall engaged in any incompatible employment in
connection with Transaction No. 3 or No. 4 or that these transactions
involved any conflict with the proper discharge of their duties.
Under the circumstances herein, there would have been no violation
of the Code of Ethics Section had it been in effect prior to February, 1970.
The foregoing analysis covers the only laws that have been found
pertaining to the transactions, as outlined above, and it is my opinion
that Transactions No. 3 and No. 4 did not violate the applicable laws~ et¢.~
for the reasons stated above.
/S/William P. Hopkins
WILLIAM P. HOPKINS
Deputy City Attorney
WPH:kw
Mayor Dutton called for questions from the Council. There being
none, invited Alan R. Watts, Assistant City Attorney, to present his report.
73-147
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1;30 P,M
.MR, ALAN R, WATTS - REPORT:
TO: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
February 22, 1973
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
ALAN R. WATTS
RE:
(1) A purchase of property by a limited partnership
named Barranca Del Gazapo, and
(2)
Joint venture involving both Mr. Murdoch and
Mr. Piersall pertaining to the acquisition of
land which is i~ unincorporated territory
BARRANCA DEL GAZAPO
Barranca Del Gazapo is a limited partnership consisting of Dudley B.
Frank as a general partner (the Times' article lists Carriage Estates Sales
Corporation as the general partner) and Thomas B. Frank, Duffern H. Helsing,
Cedric A. White, William R. Rowley, Warren Findley and Mary Ann R. Findley and
Thornton Piersall as limited partners. The certificate of limited partnership
was recorded with the County Recorder on April 1, 1969 (the Times' article
states that a certificate of limited partnership was recorded in December, 1968).
The certificate of limited partnership states that Mr. Piersall made a cash
contribution of $10,000 and that his share of the partnership was 8.33 percent.
The District Attorney's report states, and the records which we have in our
possession show, that this limited partnership has made only one property
acquisition. The purchase price for the parcel of property, as calculated
from the Documentary Stamp Tax, was approximately $348,000. (Care should be
used in calculating the sales price of property from the Documentary Stamps
because this method is sometimes inaccurate.) The District Attorney's report
indicates that the parcel of property is 46.74 acres. The Grant Deed evidencing
this transaction was recorded with the County Recorder on April 1, 1969. The
Deed was signed by David Yorba, one of the grantors, on March 5, 1969, and by
the remaining grantors on March 21, 1969. Both the District Attorney's report
and the Times' article state that the property was purchased on March 5, 1969.
The partnership still owns a portion of this land, but has sold that portion
abutting the Santa Ana River to the County of Orange for the development of a
regional park to be known as "Yorba Park".
The property abuts a proposed extension of La Palma Avenue between
the proposed intersection of Fairmont Boulevard on the west and Weir Canyon
Road on the east. The property was annexed to the City of Anaheim in an
annexation known as "Esperanza-Carrillo", which was approved by the Local
Agency Formation Commission in October of 1970.
The role played by the City of Anaheim and its employees in the
alignment of La Palma easterly from its intersection with Imperial may
generally be characterized as nominal. The extension of La Palma from
Imperial to Fairmont Boulevard has for some number of years been shown on
the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. At least as early as October
of 1965, when the City adopted its Hill and Canyon General Plan showing this
general alignment and extension of La Palma from Imperial to Fairmont Boulevard,
there has been general knowledge of the extension of La Palma easterly of
Imperial. The City of Anaheim did not adopt an amendment to the Circulation
Element of its General Flan showing either a general or a precise alignment
of the extension of La Palma Avenue easterly of Imperial. The only general
alignment shown on General Plans of the City of Anaheim have been those in-
serted which showed roads depicted on the County's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
Insofar as the construction of La Palma easterly of Imperial is
concerned, the City has let construction contracts for construction of approxi-
mately 2,965 feet of roadway easterly from Imperial Highway. Such construction
has been completed. The amount of roadway construction does not reach to the
proposed intersection with Fairmont Boulevard. This roadway was constructed
in its present location primarily because property owners in connection with
development dedicated land at locations agreed upon with members of the City
staff below the department head level.
73-148
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.February 22, 1973, 1:30 P,M.
The alignment of La Palma easterly from the proposed intersection
with Fairmont Boulevard was established by the Orange County Road Department.
The City of Anaheim did not establish this alignment.
The District Attorney's Report states that in a conversation that
the District Attorney's investigators had with Bill Devitt, the Design
Engineer in the City Engineer's Office, and Jim Maddox, the City Engineer,
that Bill Devitt did not know that Mr. Piersall owned property in this area
until reading the article of June 23, 1972, which appeared in the Los Angeles
Times. Bill Devitt made the same statement to the members of the City
Attorney's Office.
Mr. Piersall's personal involvement in the alignment of La Palma
has been that which is associated generally in his involvement with City
street construction projects, i.e., he has signed construction plans and
various documents pertaining to the bids and the completion of a construc-
tion project for the portion of La Palma which has been under City contract.
Bill Devitt stated that Mr. Piersall has not changed any of the plans which
have been submitted to him nor has he contacted any of the design engineers
pertaining to those plans prior to their submittal to him.
The Grand Jury in their letter dated December 14, 1972, requests
the City Attorney to give special attention to the events leading up to the
resolution passed by the City Council on December 29, 1970, which urged the
Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 to accelerate their trunk line con-
struction in the Santa Ana Canyon. It is to be noted that in a General Plan
which was adopted by the Sanitation District in 1965 that this trunk line
sewer was to be constructed by 1980. The information which we obtained from
the District Attorney indicates that through the auspices of the Design
Engineer, Bill Devitt, a study was made by the Design Engineering section.
This study indicated that the area of development east of Imperial bordering
the north side of the Santa Aha River and bordering the southerly side of the
Santa Ana River would be deficient in sewer in January, 1974, unless the
major trunk line contemplated by the Sanitation District was constructed.
Bill Devitt presented this study to the City Council and recommended that a
resolution be adopted which urged the Sanitation District to construct the
line prior to January 1, 1974, in order to provide relief to certain over-
loaded lines and to service carriers currently without trunk sewers.
One must conclude on the basis of the information available to us
that an engineering study determined that the area was inadequately sewered
to handle the contemplated development which was anticipated, and that as a
result thereof, the engineers recommended to the City Council, who agreed
with the recommendation, that the Sanitation District should be urged to
construct the trunk sewer line at a time earlier than their 1965 General
Plan indicated the trunk sewer line should be constructed.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Certain State Statutes or City Ordinances may be dismissed quickly
as not being applicable to the acquisition by Barranca Del Gazapo of the
property described above. Section 1090 of the Government Code, for instance,
prohibits City employees from having a financial interest in a contract made
by them in their official capacity. Although the courts have interpreted
the word "made~ as used in this section in a broad sense so as to emcompass
the negotiations, discussions, compromises, reasoning, planning, drawing of
plans and specifications and solicitation of bids, .~ilbrae A~socSation for
Res%dentSal Surv%val vs. City of M~lbrae (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2nd 222, 69
Cal. Rptr. 251, there is no evidence that the City of Anaheim has ever
engaged in any negotiations or discussions leading to any agreement with
Barranca Del Gazapo pertaining to the property owned by the partnership.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that this section has no application to Mr.
Piersall's participation in the Barranca Del Gazapo partnership. Section
708 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim, which prohibits indirect or
direct financial interest by officers and employees of the City in any
contract, sale or transaction to which the City is a party, and which con-
tract comes before the official for official action, is also inapplicable
to the acquisition by Barranca Del Gazapo of the property described above
for the simple reason that no contract, sale or transaction pertaining to
this property has ever been discussed or entered into between the partner-
ship and the City.
Anaheim, California- COUNC_I__L MI.Np..TES - February 22~_19~73, 1:.3.0 P.M~
73-149
Section 1120 of the Government Code provides that members of the
governing bodies, boards and commissions of local public agencies shall dis-
close any direct personal financial interest in non-contractual matters coming
before the governing body, board or conrnission. If a member of a governing
body or board of a public agency had a direct personal financial interest in
the zoning or, in the case of a subdivision, the approval of a tentative or
final tract map in a parcel of property, such interest would have to be dis-
closed unless one or more of the exemptions as provided in Section 1120 were
applicable. However, in this case, even if the partnership did apply for
zoning or submit a tract map, it is quite obvious that by any definition Mr.
Piersall was not a member of a governing body or a board and, therefore, the
Section is inapplicable. In any event, Section 1120 provides in Subdivision 3
thereof that as a recipient of public services generally provided by the local
public agency for which he acts on the same terms and conditions as if he were
not a member of the governing body or board, is specifically excluded from
having or being deemed to have a direct personal financial interest in a non-
contractual matter. Therefore, it is quite obvious that for the reasons above
described, this Section would be inapplicable to Mr. Piersall's participation
in the Barranca Del Gazapo partnership.
Section 1121 of the Government Code provides, in general, that any
gain or profit made by an officer of a local public agency through (1) the
purchase and sale of property, (2) the value of which has been substantially
enhanced by governmental action, (3) the advance knowledge of which was im-
parted to such officer by reason of his public office, and (4) was not a
matter of public record, shall be impressed with a trust in favor of the local
agency. This section is clearly inapplicable to the Barranca Del Gazapo prop-
erty. In the first instance, this section was not added to the Government
Code until 1970, and the acquisition of property by Barranca was prior to the
enactment of this section. Moreover, there is no evidence that the property
has been substantially enhanced by governmental action, the advance knowledge
of which was imparted to the officer (Mr. Piersall) by reason of his public
office. As a matter of fact, most of the private development in this area
took place well after the acquisition by the partnership of the property. The
property was not annexed to the City of Anaheim until 1971, almost two years
after the partnership acquired the property. The obvious thrust of Section
1121 is ~ere advance knowledge enables a public employee to acquire and sell
the property because of the advance knowledge and the value of the property is
increased by governmental action. This situation simply is not present in this
particular acquisition by Barranca Del Gazapo. It should be noted that even at
the present time, the construction of La Palma Avenue through the Barranca
property has not taken place. Thus, we do not believe that governmental action,
which increases the value of the property, has taken place with respect to the
acquisition and sale by Barranca Del Gazapo.
In February of 1970, the City adopted Section 1.01.400 of its
Municipal Code which provides a Code of Ethics for public officers and employees.
Mr. Piersall is quite clearly under the provisions of this Ordinance, a public
officer or employee. Section (g) of the Ordinance defines rather specifically
conflicts of interest. Insofar as the acquisition of property by Barranca Del
Gazapo is concerned, and Mr. Piersall's participation in the partnership, it
is apparent that Section (g) (4), which defines a conflict of interest, is the
only section which has any possible application and, therefore, we discuss only
that particular section. The other sections clearly are not applicable. A con-
flict of interest exists in a matter before an official for consideration or
determination if~the public official has a substantial financial or substantial
personal interest in the outcome as a partner where his interemt exceedm 3 per-
cent of the enterprise that will be affected by the outcome and such interest
may be adverse to the public interest in the proper performance of governmental
duties o~ the o~icial. Section (h) of the above mentioned Ordinance provides
in the third paragraph thereof, that any employee who ham a financial or other
special interest in a matter before the City Council or any board or commission
and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the
Council or to the board shall dimclose on the records of the Council or board
the nature and extent of much interest. In analyzing the acquisition by
Barranca Del Gazapo and any public actions taken on that property, it is clear
that the City Council has never taken action with respect to the alignment of
La Palma as it abuts this particular parcel of property. Therefore, Mr. Piersall
could not have disclosed any interest in the property in connection with much
73-150
.Anaheim, California - COUNC%L MINUTES - FebruarY 22, 1973, !;30 P,M,
action. Moreover, insofar as the zoning and submittal of a tentative tract
is concerned, there is no evidence that Mr. Piersall ever participated in
any discussions with the Council or the Planning Commission or gave an
official opinion to the Council or Planning Commission in connection with
that activity. Therefore, we would conclude that there was no requirement
that Mr o Piersall disclose any such interest to the City Council. It should
be noted that Frank Ayres, a developer, submitted a tentative tract map to
the City Council in June of 1971 on the property owned by Barranca Del
Gazapo. The City Council denied the tentative tract map on the grounds that
the area to be covered by it was subject to floods from the Santa Aha River.
Thus, we note that if Mr. Piersall were attempting to influence the City
Council, he appears to have been particularly unsuccessful.
This concludes the legal analysis of the various sections of the
State Government Code and the Code of Ethics and Charter Provisions of the
City of Anaheim insofar as they apply to this particular transaction. We
conclude that there is no violation of any of the various laws (attached
as an Appendix) by Mr. Piersall through his participation in Barranca Del
Gazapo and their acquisition of property.
JOINT VENTURE PROPERTY
Pursuant to a deed dated November 15, 1965, a group of individuals
including Charles B. Frank, Keith Murdoch, Thornton Piersall, George E.
Tilson, Frederick E. Krein, Edward S. Hawkins and Joseph Scholz acquired
approximately 13 acres of land running northerly from Esperanza east of the
intersection of Esperanza and Imperial Boulevard. Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall
each owned an undivided one-tenth interest in the parcel of property. This'
parcel of property has not been sold by the group of individuals above named
who purchased it.
In May of 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted a
resolution which had the effect of fixing spheres of influence for the cities
of Yorba Linda and Anaheim. That resolution provided that the southern
boundary of the City of Yorba Linda would be Esperanza Road and that Imperial
Highway was to constitute the eastern boundary of the City of Anaheim to the
point where said highway crosses the Santa Aha River and that south of the
Santa Ana River from its intersection with Imperial Highway. The southern
bank of the Santa Ana River would constitute the northern boundary of the
City of Anaheim east of Imperial Highway. This left the area on the north
side of the Santa Ana River north to Esperanza Road essentially a "No Man's"
land.
On August 12, 1970, the Local Agency Formation Con~nission revised
the spheres of influence of the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim by pro-
viding that the northerly boundary of the City of Anaheim would be the south
right of way line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad as it extends
through the Santa Ana Canyon and that the Railroad right of way should also
constitute the southern boundary of the City of Yorba Linda in the Santa Aha
Canyon.
On October 27, 1971, the Local Agency Formation Co~ission again
considered the question of spheres of influence of the cities of Anaheim and
Yorba Linda. Several property owners who owned land north of Esperan~a Road
requested the Local Agency Formation Commission to consider an annexation of
the City of Anaheim, which was described as the Esperanza-Yorba Annexation.
At the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission, Keith l~urdoch ap-
peared before the Local Agency Formation Commission on October 27, 1971, and
discussed in general the advantages of annexation to property north of the
Esperanza Road to the City of Anaheim. It is to be noted that this appear-
ance was in response to a request by the Local Agency Formation Commission
and not done at the instigation of Mr. Murdoch.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The letter of December 14, 1972, of the Grand Jury requests that
we give special attention to Mr. Murdoch's appearance before LAFCO on
October 27, 1971, particularly as it applies to the Code of Ethics Ordinance,
Subdivision (h) thereof. While the Grand Jury did not specify which parti-
cular part of Subsection (h) they are interested in, it would seem apparent
73-151
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, ~:30 P,M.
that they are interested in that paragraph which provides, "Any employee, who
has a financial or other special interest in a matter before the City Council
or any board, commission or cormnittee and who participates in discussion with,
or gives an official opinion to the Council or to such board, commission or
committee relating to such matter, shall disclose on the records of the Council
or such board, commission or committee, as the case may be, the nature and
extent of such interest."
In the first instance, it should be understood that the requirement
of disclosure pertains to a financial or special interest which constitutes a
conflict of interest. In order to constitute a conflict of interest, the matter
must be before the official for consideration or determination, and that official
have a substantial financial or personal interest in the outcome, and that the
interest may be adverse to the public interest in the proper performance of
governmental duties or, in the alternative, that the official has reason to
believe or expect that he will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct
monetary loss by reason of his official activity. In this particular instance,
it is difficult to see how annexation would constitute an adverse public interest.
The fact of the matter is that an annexation to the City of Anaheim is not a
conflict of interest with the interests of the City of Anaheim.
The best answer, however, to the question by the Grand Jury of Mr.
Murdoch's appearance before the Local Agency Formation Commission is that the
phrase "Any employee ..... who participates in discussions with the City Council
or any board, commission or committee" refers to those boards, commissions and
committees instituted by the Charter or the City Council of the City of Anaheim.
Those commissions might be the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning Com-
mission and commissions such as these which have been formed pursuant to the
Charter or by action of the City Council of the City of Anaheim. As a general
rule, an ordinance of a city has only a local effect. That is, pursuant to
Article 11, Section 5 and Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution,
municipal ordinances are effective and have application only to the city within
which they are enacted. In that connection, see Ferran vs. City of Palo Alto
(1942) 50 Cal. App. 2d 374, 122 P2d 965. While it may be that the City Council
could specify in its Code of Ethics that officials and employees would have to
reveal or disclose financial or special interests to any body ~ local, state or
federal - before which they might appear, we do not believe that the present
ordinance may be so construed.
In that connection, we note that Subparagraph (b) of the Code of
Ethics Ordinance describes a public official as all elected officials of the
City and the members of all official boards, commissions and committees of the
City. Thls is certainly an indication that the intent of the Council in adopt-
ing this Ordinance by using language of "boards, commissions or committees" was
the same language used later on in Subsection (h) when referring to the City
Council or any "board, commission or committee." This indicates that the in-
tent of the Ordinance is to limit it solely to the boards, commissions and
committees of the City. If this is so, quite clearly Mr. M~rdoch was not
required to disclose his interest before the Local Agency Formation Commission
on October 27, 1971.
In addition, it should be noted that the Local Agency Formation
Commission is simply a preliminary step in the annexation process and that
assuming Chat that agency gives its approval for the annexation to proceed,
the City Council, at a subsequent time, must consent to the annexation before
it may become effective. Any such interest could certainly be disclosed at
that time before the City Council.
We have not discussed any of the other sections in the Ethics Ordin-
ance in regard to the appearance of Mr. Murdoch before the Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission, but we would conclude that for the reasons hereinabove stated
that those sections are not applicable to that appearance and that, therefore,
no violations of the Code of Ethics Ordinance occurred because of failing to
disclose the interest Mr. M~rdoch had in the property which was the subject of
the annexation before the Local Agency Formation Commission.
ARW: kw
/S/Alan R, Watts
ALAN R. WATTS
Assistant City AttQr~ey
152
Anaheim~ I~alifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
GOVERNMENT CODE -- Sections 1090 and 1091
ARTICLE 4. PItOIIIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIED OFFICERS
! 1090. Conflicts of Interest; contracts, sales and rurchascs
5[emtmrs of the [~l~la~tlre, state, county, district, Judicial district, and city
officers or cn~p]oycc~ :-hall .et I~ financiaqy interested In ~ny contract made by
them In H~eir official capacity, or by any ~)(ly or board of which they are meml~rs.
Nor shall state, connry, district, jmtic[al district, nad city officers or employes ~
purcha.~ers at any sale or vendors a~ auy purchase made by them in their official
capacity.
As .sod in this article. "district" means any a~ncy of the state formed pumua~t
to general law oc special act, for the local ~rformance of governmental or pr~
prlctary fanctions within li:nited boundaries.
(Amer(kM by Stats.1970. c. ~7, p. ~% { 1.) ·
i 1091. Remote Interest of officer
(a) An officer shall no~ be deemed to be interested in a contract entered into by a
~y or board or ~,'hich ho is a nlcmN~r within the meaning of this article if he has
only n remote interco, iii the co.tract and If tho fact of such interest is disclo~d
to tho bt:dy o,. {,,,~cd of which ho is :t member and noted in its official ~-
or~s, and ti'er(~l(,r ti o h(~dy or board authorizes, apl)roves, or ratifies the con.
tract la good f:tith by a xc~c o~ i~s nlon;l)crsliil) sufficient for tho pn~o~ without
counting ;ho vote (,~' votes of the offi~r or member with the remote lnte~s~
~) As t~scd in this article emote lnte~,st' means:
(1) That of a nonsalaried of flor of a nonprofit co~oratlon;
(2) That of an C~al)loyt,o or agent of tho contracting party, If such ~ntractlng
party has 10 or more other employees and if tho officer was an cmploy~ or agent
of smd contracting party for at least three years prior to his initially ae~pting his
office.
For the pt~rpoges of this subsection, time of employment with the ~ntraetlng party
by the officer shall bo ~)unted in comp.ting the three-year period specified in
Ibis subsection c~en though such contraeti~:; party has b~n oonverted from one
form of business o~ganization to a diffeq'(mt form of business organization within
th~.e years of the initial taking of office by ~ucb officer. Time of emlfloyment in
such eaa~ shall be cot;hied only ir, after the transfer or change in orgnnization, the
real or ultimate ownership of the contracting party is the ~mm or substantially
slmitar to that which existed before such transfer or cltnn:e in organization. For
the purposes of this subsection, stocki~olders, bondhohlers, partners, or other per.ns
hol~ing an interest in the eontractlnz party are regarded as having the "real or
ultimaUz ownership" of such corm'acting party.
(3/ That of a parent in the earnings of his minor child for per~nal servl~s;
(4} That of a landlord or tenant of the contracting party;
(5) That or an.attorney of the contracting party; or
(6} That of n momlmr of a nonpraflt eou)onttlon formed ~mder tho Agricultural
Code or a noaproftt corporation f. rmed under the Coamntthms Code for thc ~le
purpose of engaging lu tho mcrehnmtising of agrlculturnl produem or the supplying
cf water.
(7) That of a stHq~lier of goods or services when sueb goods or servi~s had ~en
supplied to th,. conlractina parly by the officer for at least five }'ears prior to his
election or apl~intme.t to ofri~.
(g) That of a ~r~on subject to the prorislons of Section 1~ In any contract or
agreemc::t entc, mql into pursuant to the provisions of tho California Mad Con~m'a-
tlon Act of
(9) That ¢,f :~n offi(.,c, director, ar c.mlnvoe of n bank. bank holdin~ ¢o~nDa~y, or
~VIII~.q DIId ]o,I11 :~<~,)eiati,)n w{~h v, hi, h n l),ivty ~o the c,).trnct has th~, ~latlou-
(C) °£ho I)rovisi,m< of ibis seetio, shall n(~t I~t: alq)licltbl~ to any offl~r lnte~stcd
in a ~ntraet who i.flu,mees or altompts to lnfluen~ nnother mem&r of the ~ly
or b03rtl of which ho 1¢ fl I1;m:lnl~.r to enter into the contract.
{fl} ThO willful faihin~ of an officer to dNelcse tim fact of his lnte~st In a ~n-
tract p,rsuant to thi~ ~ction shall I~ punishable ns provided In Section 1097.
8ueh violation shall not void tho contract howoror, unless the ~ntractlne party had
knowledge of lhe fact of the remote interest of the offl~r at the time the contract
was executed.
(Amended by ~;tats.19~, e. a~a, p. 1172, } 1.5; 8tats. lfl~q, e. 525, D. 1171, } 1; Stats.
1~9, e. 82a, p. loxt, ~ 1; stats. ID70, e. ~6, p. 476, } 2, urgency, eft. ~une 22, 1970.}.
APPENDIX - Page 1
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
73-15B
GOVERNHENT CODE -- Sections 1091.1 and 1091.5
§ 10DI.1 Inlerest tn contracts; subdivided lands. ~e
flea against an interest ~n contracts provided by this article or any
o~er provision of law shall not be deemed to prohibit any public of.
fl~r or member of any public board or commission from subdividin~
1~ o~ed by him or in which he has ~ interest and which subdivi-
sion of 1~ is effected ~der the provisions of Chapter 2 (commenc-
ing at ~ction 11500) of Part 2 of Division ~ of ~e Business and ~o-
fe~io~ Code or any local ordinance concerning subdivisions; provided,
~at (a) said officer or member of such board or co~ission shah fi~t
~y disclose lhe nature of his ~nterest in any such lands to the legis-
lative body havJn~ jurisdiction over the subdivision thereof, and (b)
~d officer or member of such board or commission shall not cast his
vote upon any matter or contract concerning said subdivision in any
manner whatever. (Added Stats. l~59, c. G28, p. 2~G$, ~ 1.)
Libra~ references: Count~e~ ~2(2~; Municipal Corp6radons ~231: States
~DS; C~.S. Counties ~ 192; C.J.S. Munkipal Corporations [ ~; Cd.S. States
I 1091~ Ownership of corporate shares= reimbursement for expon es; recipient of
public services; I~n~erd er tenant contracting with federal or state
agencies; o/llcer, director, or employee of bank or savings and loan
loclatlon
~) An offl~r or employ~ shall not ~ d~m~ to be Interested In a ~ntract
h~ lnter~t is:
(a) The ownership of less than 3 per~nt ~f the share5 of a co.ration for profit,
provided the total nnnual Income to him from dividends, inclutfin~ the value of
· t~k dividends, from the co~oration does,not ex~ 5 ~ercent of his total annual
ln~mo, and any other payments made to hint by the corl~ratlon do not exc~d
~nt of his total annual Income:
~) That of an oilier In ~lne ~Imbu~ for his actual and n~ssary ex.rises
Ineu~ In the performance of official duty;
(e) ~hat of- a recipient of ImbUe servi~s renerall7 pr0vld~ bY the public t~7
~ard of which he Is a mmn~r, on the sume terms and conditiol~a a~ If he were not
a mere[mr of the 1}oard.
(d) That of n )andl,~rd or tm.mt of the conlracting party if such contractln~
~q~y Is the fe{h,ral eovornrnent or uny federal departme.t or agency, this st:do or
Gn adJoini.g 'state, any Elt'p;trtment or agency of this state or an ndjohdng slatt~ any
~unty or city of thls state or an adjoining stale, or any public ~rporatiorl or
$~elal, Judicial, or other Imhlie district of this st~tte or an adjolning state unle~
the subject matter of vuch ¢-tstract is the property in which such offi~,r or employ~
-has 8nth hH('rcst fix lamllord or tenant in which excnt his interest shall [~ deemed
a rentvte l-retest within lbo mo:uti.< .qlld subjt.ct to the provisions of 8cctlon l~.)l.
(e) That (,f n It'll;lilt ill a lml,?ie h,msi.z authority cr~,atr, d m~rs,mnt to ]*art o
(2) All officer or eml)loyee shall not l~. th,omed to tm interest~l In n ~ntrnct made
pumunnt to o,mpetitiv~, bidding m~der
Intel'cst is that of HII officer, dil't, ctor. or eml,h,yee of n bank or sa~ings nnd loan
8s~elation with.which a l);trty to tho co~Iract has the relationship of ~rrower or
~e~sitor, deI,Djr or creditor.
(Att:ended l,y ~tats. lDG~, e. 127G. p. ~t0l, ~ 1; 8tal~l~71, & 1~1, ~ --, ~ 1.} -
l~ ~mendment. Added the provisions 1971 Amendment. ~dded $u~. (1) Ce).
~es/~nated as $ubds. (I) (d) ~td
APPEh~)IX - Page
t
3- 154
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
GOVERNMENT CODE -- S-orions 1120 and 1121
I 1120. Dlsclo.~ure 'q'--"r-
(a__l) l%fembers of [rorerning bodies, boards and comralsslons of any local public
agency shall disclose any direct persortal financial Ivterest · * * in any noneon.
.trz~ctual matter coming before such governing body, board or eommlsslo~ Any
member of a governing body, board or commlm~lon of any local public agency who
knowingly fails to disclose such Interest shall be guilty of misconduct in office
and shall be p.ntshable as provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 30q30)
of (~hapter 7, Division 4. Title l.
(b) A member of the ~overnine body, board or commission shall not be deeme~]
to have a direct I',ersonal financial interest In a noncontraetual matter if his inter-
est la:
fl) The ownership of l~s than 3 percent of the shares of a corporation for profit.
provided the total anmml Jlmome to him from diridends, including the value of
stock divhlend~, from the corporation does not exee~l 5 percent of his total annual
Income, and any other paylnonts niadc to him h3' tho corporation do not exceed 5
percent of his total annual income:
(2) That of an officer in lwin~ reimbursed for his aetnal and necessary expens~
incurred In the ~rfornmno~ of official duty:
(3) That of n recipient of public services eenerally provided by the local pul)He
agency for which ho acts, on the same terms ami comlitions as If he were not a
ri]ember of tho L'orernin8 body, board or eommi.~sion.
(Added by Stats. 1967, e. 10S7, p. 2722, ~ 1. Amended by 8tats.19~, e. 674, p. 13~,
} 2: 8tat~19~, e. 1276, p. 2402, { 8.)
§ 1121. Impressing'gains or profits from sale of property wlth trust
Any gains or profit.~ made by any officer or employee of the state or of a local
public agency through the purchase and tale of property tile value of which has
been substa~itlally enhanced hy gorernmental action, the ndrance knowledge of
whieh was imparted to such officer or employee hy reason of his public office or
employment, ami was not n matter of public record, shall he lmi,ressed with a trust
in favor of the s{ato or of the local agency whose activities bring abont such en-
hancement. If there is no readily identifiable local public a.,-'cncy inroh-ed then
the beneficiary of the trust shall be the state. The provl.~ions of this section shall
not apply to any officer or employee cf the state or of a local public agency who
submits a bid for the purchase of prol)erty at a public sale after notice Inviting such
bids has been given as required by statute, rule or regulation.
The city attorney of the city In which the property Is located shall enforce the
trust; and If the l)roperty is not within a city the county counsel of the county in
which tho PrOl,,r[y Is located shatl er, for(.,, tIH? trust. [u ~he event that Hie trust
it hot -I~f-m'~,d I~.x' Il {'it}' ilttt,rll{,y or a ('Olllll}' L~.OIlILS[,I, the Attorney General Is L'lll-
],ow,red {,, ('nf-J'cC tho tru<t.
{.kddcd by St:tts.lt~70, c. ~5;1, p. 15,%5, § 1.)
- Page '3
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
73-155
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE -- Section 1.01.400
(Code of ethics for public officers)
1.01.400 Code of ethics for public officers and employees.
(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY. The proper operation of municipal
government requires that public officials and employees be independent,
impartial and responsible to the people, that governmental decisions and
policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure, and
that public office not be used for personal gain.
(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICE. PubLic officials are all
elective officials of the City and the members of all official boards,
commissions, and committees of the City.
Public officials and employees are bound to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and to
carry out the laws of the nation, state and municipality. PubLic officials and
emPloyees are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of
morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their offices regardless of
personal considerations, recognizing that the public interests must be their
primary concern, that conduct in both their officio/1 and private affairs
should be above reproach.
(c) DEDICATED SERVICE. Public officials and employees should not
exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so and they
should work in full cooperation with other public officials and employees
unless prohibited from so doing by law or officially recognized
confidentiality of their work.
(d) FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT. Preferential consideration of
the request or petition of any individual citizen or group of citizens shall not
be given. No person shall receive special advantages beyond that which are
available to any other citizen.
(e) USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY. No official or employee shall
request or-permit the use of City owned vehicles, equipment, materials, or
property 'for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are
available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the
use of such official or employee in the conduct of official business. No
public official or employee shall t:se the time of any' City employee during
working hours for personal convenience or profit.
(0 OBLIGATIONS TO CITIZENS. No public official or employee in
the course of Iris official duties shall grant any special consideration,
treatment, or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to
every other citizen in the same circumstances.
(g) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENEIL,\L.
(I) Conflict with Proper Discharge of Duties. No public official or
employee, while serving as such, shall have any interest, financial or
otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or
APPENDIX - Page 4
73-156
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 197.3~ 1:30 P.M.
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE -- Section
(Code of ethics -- continued)
1.01.400
professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature which is in
substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public
interest and of his responsibilities as prescribzd by the Charter or City
ordin an ces;
(2) Incompatible Employment. No public official or employee shall
accept other employment which he has reason to believe will either impair
his independence of judgment as to his official duties or require him or
induce him to disclose confidential information acquired by him in the
course of and by reason of his official duties;
(3) Disclosure of Confidential Inforrnation. No public official or
employee shall wilfifily and knowingly disclose for pecuniary gain to any
other person con£ident~al information acquired by him in the course of and
by reason of his official duties nor shall any public official or employee use
any such information for the 'purpose of pecuniary gain;
(4) Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest exists in a matter before
an official for consideration or determination if:
(A) The public official ires a substantial financial or substantial
personal interest in tile outcome or as owner, member, partner, officer,
employee, or stockholder of any corporation where his interest exceeds
three percent of the share of the corporation, and/or other professional
eneterprise that will be affected by the outcome, and such interest is or may
be adverse to the public interest in the proper performance of governmental
duties by the official,
(B) He has reason to believe or expect that he will derive a direct
monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason
of his official activity,
(C) The public official, because of bias or prejudice, or becat, se 'he has
prejudged a matter set for public hearing is incapable because of such bias,
prejudice, or prejudgment of granting to the matter before him a fair and
impartial hearing.
Personal interest as distinguished from financial interest is defined as
including, among other matters, an interest arising from blood or marriage
relationships or close business association.
(h) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AND DISQUALIFICATION. Any
councilman who has a conflict of interest, as defined herein, in any matter
before the City Council, shall disclose such fact on the records of the City
Council and refrain from participating in any discussion or voting thereon.
provided that such exceptions shall be observed as are required by law.
Any member of any official board, commission, or committee who has
a conflict of interest as defined herein, in any matter before the board.
commission, or committee, of which he is a member, shall disclose such fact
on the records of such board, commission, or committee and refrain from
participating in any discussion or voting /hereon, provided that such
exceptions shall be obserxed as are required by law.
Any employee, who hag a financial or other special interest in a matter
before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee and who
APPENDLX - Page 5
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22~ 1973, 1:30 P.M.
73-157
ANAI{EIM }~NICIPAL CODE
' (Code of ethics -
-- ~ection .1.01.400
c ont inu ed)
participates in discussion with, or gives an official opinion to the Council, or
to such board, commission, or committee relating to such matter, shall
disclose on the records of the council or such board, commission, or
committee, as the case may be, the nature and extent of such interest.
(i) CO~',PI.1ANCE W1TH STATE LAW. Public officials and employees
of the City of Anaheim shall comply with applicable provisions of State law
relative to conflicts of i,terest and generally regmlating the conduct of public
officials and employees.
(j) TttE VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE:
(1) As to all City employees, ground for dismissal from City
employment;
(2) As to any appointed position on any board, commission o~'
committee, grounds for removal from any such board, commission or
committee;
(3) As to any prosecution of any elected official, the City Council shall
make Findings of Fact by a majority vote that an elected official has, in fact.
violated this section as a prerequisite to prosecution.
(k) CITY CHARTER AND STATE LAWS - CONTROL. This section
and its application shall be supplemental to any applicable State laws and the
City Charter to any elective and appointive office.
(1) VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION - PENALTY. Any person
violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of
not to exceed five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the City or County
jail not to exceed six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord.
2783 § 1; Febnmry 24, 1970).
APPENDIX - Page. 6
z\lla!leilll ~
California - COUNCIL MINUTES-
February 2.2, 1973,
1:30 P.M.
OF
ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AT
THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 2, 1964.
APPROVED BY 'file CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE
JANUARY 14, 1965
Section 708. ILLEGAL CONTRACT, FINANCL4L INTEREST.
No member of the City Council shall have a financial interest, directly or
indirectly, in any contract, sale or transaction to which the City is h party
and neither shall an)' officer or employee, or member of any board or com-
mission, have an interest in any contract, sale or transaction to which the
City is a part), and which comes before said officer or employee, or member
of any board or commission, or lhe department or office o£ the City with
which he is connected, for official action.
Any such contract or tra.saction in which there shall be such an
interest shall become void at the election of the City, when so declared by
resolution of thc City Council.
No me'tuber of the City Council, City official or employee, or member
of any board or commission, shall be deemed to have a financial interest,
within the meaning of the foregoing provisions, in an)' contract made with
a corporation by reason of the ownership of stock in such corporation unless
said stock owned by him shall atnount to at least 0~ree per cent of all the_
stock of such corporation issued and outstanding. No City Cmmcilman or
member of any board or commission shall vote on (,r participate in any con-
tract or transaction in which hc has directly or indirectly a financial intcrcst
whether .qs a stockhokh'r of the corporati[m or other~vise. It an? ofiicur or
employee, or metal)er of any J)ctard or commission, durin.tr, the ter,u h,r
which he was elected or appointed, shall so vote or participate, nr shall have
a financial interest as aforesaid, upon conviction thereof, he shall forfeit his
office,
APPENDIX - Page 7
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
73-159
GOVERNM~,NT CODE -- Section 1126
! 1126. Inconsistent, Incompatible or conflicting employment, activity or enterprise
· by local aBeney officer or employee
(a) A. local agency officer or employee shall not engage in a~y cml)loyment, ac-
tlvlty, or enterprise for cvm[)ensatioh which is inconsistent, incompatible, in ~n-
filet with, or inimical to his dulies aa a local agent- offi(~r or employee or with the
duties, fnnctions or responsibillti~ of his appointing power or the agency by which
he Is employed. Snch officer or,employ~ shall not perform any work, scrvi~ or
~tlllse] for compensation outside of his local agellcy eml)loylnent where any part of
his efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer, employee, board or eom-
mission of his employing ~dy, unless otherwise approved la the manner preseri~d
by subdirtsion (b).
(b) Each appointing power may determine, ~ubJect to approval of the local agency.
those outside activities which, for emldoy~a under its Jurisdiction. are inconsistent
with, incompatible to. or in c.nflict with their duties as I~al a~cncy officers or
employes. An employee's outside cmploymenL activity or enterprise may be pro-
)all.Ired if it: (al inv.h-es the use for private ~llill Or advantage of his h,eal affcncy
limo, facilities, t'qUilmn,nt lind ~Upldi~s'; or the bad~e, nnif. rm prestige or il~fhlon~
of his local a~eney office or employment or, ih) invoh'es receipt or acceptance by the
offi~r or elnDloyee of any IIlOht? Or other e. nsideration fr.m anyone other thnn his
local agency for the performance of an net which tho offict,r or employee, if not per-
forming such act, would I~ required or ex~¢~eted to render ill the regular eollrRo or
hours of his local agency eml)loyment or as a part of his dt~ties as a local aRency
officer or employee or, (c) involves the performance of aa act in other than his
paeity as a local agency offiecr or employee which act may later !~ subject directly
or Indireel}y to the control, inspeeti{m, review, autlit or enforee~neut of any other
officer or employee or the agency by which he is employed, or (d) lnrolvea such time
demands ~.would render l~rformanee of his duties as a local agency officer or
ployee less efficient.
The local n~ency may adopt rules governin~ the apf)Heation of this ~tion. Such
rnlo~ shall include provision for notice to employ~ of tho determination of pro-
hibited activities, of diseil.linary action to l~, takt.n a~ain~t employ¢~.s for engaging
in l)rohibited activhies, au(l for appeal by employees from such a determination and
from its apldieation to an enq~loyee.
(adaea by Stats. 19;l, c. ~3, D. --. ~ 1.)
APPENDIX - Page 8
.,
73-160
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M
Orange County i' ews
EXCERPTS FROM
THE ANAHEIM BULLETIN
Section B.
Friday, January 8, 1960
T~T OF ACCOMPANYING N~S IT~
North American Aviation officials today announced
the purchase of 80 acres of land near Orangewood Av~.. and
the Santa Ana Freeway. The $640,000 purchase will be
the site of another multi-million dollar facility.
The $8,000 an acre land will be used for North Am-
eric-~n's Autonetics Division. Headquarters for Auto-
netics is in Downey with other branch facilities in Ful-
lerton, ~;~ittier, Pice Rivera and Compton. The Auto-
netics Division of North American works in research ~nd
production of inertial navigation systems, computers and
data processing equipment, industrial products, and ar-.
mamen~ and flight con~rol systems. Products of the dj--
vision are used beneath the oceans, on land and in outczr
space. Inertial navigation equipment developed by them
was used in the expeditions of the atomic submarines
Nautilus and Skate.
Aviation aompany officials said it was too early
to announce specific details of the type and extent of
this proposed Anaheim development. The transaction is
presently in escrow.
As has happened with many large indUstries, North
American's careful search of th~. Orange County area
found Anaheim the best location.
:'~0TE: Substantially the same article, even to
descri'bing the wrong location appear~_d in the Santa
Ana R-~gister on the same date, January 8, 1960.
APPENDIX - Page 9
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2~, 1973, 1:.30 P.M.
73-161
PATH OF ACQUISITIONS- Numbers indicate
speculative land purchases mode by Anaheim City
Manager Keith A, Murdoch and' Public Werk~
.Director Thornton E. Piersolt ever post 12 years.
1! Murdoch-DeDopper-Woiker adjacent to Auto-
netics, 1/26/60; 2~ Tierra de Oro-Piersoll, 5/5/64;
31 Tierro de Oro-Piersoll, 8/2.0/65; 4) Jay Enter-
prises - DeDopper - Walker - Murdoch, '//7/61: 5)
Barronca del Gozopo-Piersoll, 3/5/6'9; 6~ Mur.
doch-PiersolI-Krein and three others, 11/15/65.
Appgndix - Page 10
.An__3d_~eim, California - COUNCIL M1NUTgS
February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Dutton asked if there were any questions from the Council·
There was no response.
RECESS: Couucilman Pebley moved for a 10-minute recess. Councilman Stephenson
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order. Ail members of the Council
present and the meeting resumed. (3:15 P.M.)
(The following statements made before and by the City Council are
verbatim).
.MAYOR DUTTON: Now is the time for anyone present who wishes to appear and testify
of any information he may have, or thinks he has that would tend to confirm
the allegations against Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall, or tend to refute the
findings and conclusions on the part of the City Attorney's Staf~ and would
like to come up and so testify; this is the opportunity.
(From the audience - Mrs. Rea Burnap:) Mr Mayor, is this the time
to raise a point of information?
MAYOR DUTTON: This is anyone who thinks they have any information who cares to
testify on the part of sustaining the allegations against Mr. Murdoch and
Mr. Piersall.
MRS. BURNAP: Then it is not the time to raise the point for information (both
talking at once).
MAYOR DUTTON: No, no not yet, it is not.
Does anyone, this is the big opportunity waiting for --- there
have been a number people -- I have suggested that I, the City Council have
the power of subpoena. I did not subpoena them because it was public notice
that thi~ opportunity would be here on this day, when there are many people
that I know, personally, in the City of Anaheim who have had a lot of
derogatory things to say relative to this subject. This is your opportunity
if you are present to come forth and be sworn in and so testify.
I am completely amazed that no one is willing to come up and reiterate
some of the remarks that they've made out in this City. I hear no one, so
FROM THE AUDIENCE: May I ask a question.
MAYOR DUTTON: Yes sir.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Why wasn't a lawyer retained to work up the other side of the
case?
MAYOR DUTTON: Would you come down here to the microphone, please, and give us
your name and address for the records.
MR. HAZEN: My name is Paul Hazen, 1251 E. Broadway, Apartment B. This that we
have listened to for the past hour and a half, I would refer to as the defense
of these gentlemen. My question is why hasn't the Council retained the ser-
vices of a lawyer to work up the prosecution? I'd like to hear both sides
by .... .
MAYOR DUTTON: I would point out to you that on June 23rd, on the breaking of
the story and these allegations in the Los Angeles Times, the City Council
of the City of Anaheim re~erred the complete matter to the Grand Jury who had at
their disposal, and did refer the case to the District Attorney's Office,
for investigation and prosecution if any was warranted. So the people have
spoken in that instance and that's the due process that works in this case.
MR. HAZEN: Well as far as I'm concerned I have only heard half of it.
MAYOR DUTTON: I would point out, as I did before, that this broke on June 23rd
and has been tried in the newspapers a long time. For the final time, does
anyone wish to step forward and testify with anything that would tend to
substantiate the allegations or tend to refute the findings and conclusions
of the City Attorney's Staff.
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL M~NUTES- February 22, 1973, 1;30. P.M,
MR. GIL KRAEMER: Members of the Council my name is Gil Kraemer. We bave property
located east of Imperial Bridge, in the County and in the City of Anaheim. The
reason that I stood up is that I wanted to take the opportunity because of our in-
volvement with the property since 1957. The testimony and reports that have been
given are clearly and basically the same as we have experienced since 1957 in four,
possibly five matters.
MAYOR DUTTON: Well excuse me just a minute Mr. Kraemer, you are testifying now in
favor.
MR. KRA~R: Yes, in substantiation ---.
MAYOR DUTTON: Well just a minute, let's go through this due process here -- I'd
like to have the City Clerk swear you since no one wants to speak for the other
side, will you be sworn in by the City Clerk and so testify.
At this time, City Clerk Dene M. Daoust administered the oath to
Mr. Gil Kraemer.
MR. KRAEMER: The property in question, the family, that the Kraemer ranch owns,
approximately 180 acres in the Santa Ana river channel, between Esperanza Road
and Santa Ana Canyon Road; we have attempted to develop since 1957 - various
types of developments.
1957 we attempted to extract sand and gravel. This extraction of
sand and gravel after some years of effort was denied at the County level
because of a number of reasons. One being the future construction of the
Orange County Flood Control Channel east of Imperial Bridge, the other item
was the Riverside Freeway which would be extended to the Corona City limits
or the City of Corona. '
During thmt process of years since '57 until toda~ there have been
other items such as the extension of La Palma Avenue,which is an obvious
necessity in the area for development because of access; independent completely
upon what use the property will be put to, the County as well as the City of
Anaheim at an early date in the mid-or early '60's showing on their plans the
extension of La Palma Avenue. The intersection of La Palma Avenue, at the same
early date, with Fairmont Avenue coming from the north. These three items I
think are paramount. We as landowners as early as 1957 were aware of these.
And I just wanted to bring those items up at this time.
MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you very much Mr. Kraemer. Anyone else have anything they
would like to say relative to the subject? Anyone else wish to be heard?
The City Clerk administered the oath to Mr. James A. Liberio.
MR. LIBERIO: My name is Mr. James A. Liberio. I was really the originator in the
Santa Ana Annexation on the property in question, between Imperial Highway and Weir
Canyon Road and south of Esperanza, and we had many meetings with LAFC before
we purchased this property that we own - we own about 45 acres - some of it we
sold to the County for the Yorba Park. My partner, Ray Speh'ar, have bought the
80 acres on the corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma - and they started to
proceed to put La Palma through, and we purchased the 45 acres which is about
two miles south of the road with the intention and the advice from the City
that the La Palma would be extended and that was way back in 1969, that's
when we purchased it. At that time we had many many meetings with the County.
We were turned down one time on the annexation because the sphere of influence
was set south of the river and west of Imperial. And a year later we came back
and they changed the boundaries to th~ south of Esperanza, which would be
the railroad line. And each time we came through the City Council we had many
problems between the flood control and the zoning. And I don't see where there's
any conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you.
MAYOR DUTTON: One question, did you say 1969 or '59?
MR. LIBERIO: We purchased it in '69 - April 10 is when we closed the escrow. Any
other questions?
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February ..22. 1973, 1:30 P.M
MAYOR DUTTON: Any questions of Mr. Liberio? Thank you very much Mr. Liberio.
Anyone else wish to ~stify? City Clerk swear the witness.
The City Clerk administered the oath to Mr. Dudley Frank.
FRANK: Gentlemen, my name is Dudley Frank. I'd like to take a few minutes
to discuss a subject that has been a very heavy thing for me to go through
the last 6, 8, 9 months, I can only state that ~- Mr. Piersall and I have
been friends and he has been an investor with me for many, many years; I have
known Thorny, I guess, for 14 or 15 years. He has been involved with me both
in the City of Anaheim and throughout the County in a variety of real estate
transactions, both development and buying and selling of land.
I would like to correct what I feel, if I can, the general impression
implied wrongs that have been attributed to Mr. Piersall by the press. I have
been very disturbed mainly because although I was -- let me first, maybe tell
you, just a second, how I buy and sell land and how I put my deals together
and then I can -- from this you will have a better idea of how Mr. Piersall
has come to become involved with me.
Typically I will go out and locate something, a piece of property
that is in the path of development, or looks as if it's going to be ready for
development in the near future and I will enter into an escrow, either in my
own name or using my corporation, which is Carriage Estates. This was the
case in Barranca del Gazapo, two or three of the Tierra de Ore pieces, Peralta
Valley, Grand Marnier, and other deals too around the County which of course
have not been brought up because they weren't in the City of Anaheim. Then I
will go and -- I usually take the lion's share of it myself and the remaining
portions of it I offer to investor friends, some of my family, people that I
have been close to and Mr. Piersall in the instances he has been involved has
taken, I guess an average between 5% and 15% interests. We at no time made
any effort to hide his ownership in the groups. They were publicly -- it was
publicly noted and by the same token I never mentioned his name in any of my
dealings with the City of Anaheim because that too I felt would have been a
way of putting pressure on some of the people, the staff that we were working
with, if they knew that someone in the City owned a piece of the deal that we
were bringing to them for, let's say zoning or whatever it was, so we didn't
go out and advertise it but it was a matter of public record, we did nothing
to hide it.
What has bothered me most about this is that all of these articles,
all of them, could be written without any consultation with me. I was the
one that located them in all cases, I put the group together, I decided who
would be in it and who wouldn't. I know the motives for our purchases and
yet these series of articles by both the Times, the Register and then the
Bulletin in tur~ were written without anyone asking me word "one? I finally
after several months did make one or two contacts with several members of
the press but there never was anything further as far as what I had to say on
it. Now gentlemen you might not have believed what I had to say but you could
have at least listened to me. This is probably what has bothered me. Then
after the press having their field day -- the gentlemen that said he wanted
to hear the other side; the other side was what was originally published, sir,
this is what started it all out, the other side was when the press made these
implied statements of guilt, and this is what has inspired this defense. So
the other side was printed about six or eight months ago and we have had to
sit and endure it all this time, and it hasn't been easy to do, to just sit
back and let this thing run wild and the people saying anything they feel like
it, and getting it in the papers. Then after the articles are printed we find
the editorial column jumping in and piously stating that the Council should
act and do something about this, you know, the City owes it to take action.
There again, the implication being "get rid of these gentlemen, you know they
have not lived up to the trust that they're supposed to have". This has been
the thing that has been very disturbing. If it's bothering me like this I can
imagine what it has been doing to these gentlemen. It hasn't been an easy thing
to live with. I think that's all I've got to say. The facts as printed by the
press originally were substantially true; there were some minor things, but
nothing terribly significant. If any of the members of the press or the
Council have any questions as far as any of the deals involving Mr. Piersall
I could speak to them because in all cases I was the organizing and procuring
cause of the transaction.
73-165
Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P,M.
MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you Mr. Frank. Does the Council have any questions of Mr. Frank?
Thank you sir. Anyone else wish to testify? One more time anyone else wish to
be heard. '
Now I think that it is unfortunate that this has been going and it has
been a trial by newspapers since June 23. Basically, this Council believes in
the presumptiveness of innocent until proven guilty which has been our principle
of all the years in this Country. We all believe in the due process of law,
believe firmly that the accused at all times should have the right to face their
accusers. I would point out since June 23rd, when this story broke,in the Los
Angeles Times and was carried by the local newspapers, from that day until this
day Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall and including today when this opportunity was
afforded to those accusers to come here and speak up, under oath, and even to this
day the accused have not had an opportunity to face the accusers. I would like
Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall, if they care to make a statement, Mr. Murdoch.
COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Well there's another lady that has something.
MAYOR DUTTON: Did someone have their hand up out there.
COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Well she stood up a while ago.
MAYOR DUTTON: Well, I didn't see her. Do you ha~ a question Mrs. Burnap. Do you
want to testify or just ask a question.
MRS. REA BURNAP: Just a question. My name is Rea Burnap, President of the League
of Women Voters of Anaheim and Garden Grove, and we would ask that this question
be directed to the City Attorney. We would appreciate knowing what legal purpose
this meeting serves for the people of Anaheim.
MR. GEISLER: As far as I know the only legal purpose that this meeting serves the
City of Anaheim is to give the explanation which the Grand Jury says should be
made to all the citizens of Anaheim as to the article, as to an investigation
and a proper explanation of the matters involved. Now that is what we think is
served by this. The Grand Jury's investigation, as far as I know, made no speci-
fic reference or any detailed explanation of what their investigation had concluded.
It left the implication that maybe some crimes had been committed, but that they
were outlawed by the statute of limitations. That was not the case. We think
and we did, we took all of the material turned over by them; we looked into every
bit of it to see wh~ther there was any evidence at all of any nature whatsoever
to indicate the violation of any law. Period. And this is the report that's
been made. I think this is what the citizens of the City of Anaheim are entitled
to know. Did either of these officials commit any crime? Did they commit a
crime at that time, or did they even commit a set of activities which under the
present laws would constitute a crime? And the report that's been made by the
three attorneys, and not myself, is "No, they did not commit any crime under any
statutes which were then in existence, misdemeanor or felony." "And the activities
wh~h they conducted at that time would not be a crime under the present statutes
which are now in existence." Now that's the report that we have made, it is based
upon the material and investigation of the District Attorney's office and appar-
ently the Grand Jury. It's all the information that they turned over to us. If
they had any othe~ I don't know. But we have analyzed carefully -- we've read --
we've sifted through, and that's the way it stands. There is absolutely no evi-
dence of the commission of any crime. I think it serves that purpose, I think
~hat's what the Grand Jury said they would like, and this is what the City Council
said they would like.
MAYOR DUTTON: Does that answer your question Mrs. Burnap? Does anyone else have any
question that they would like to ask? Does anyone have any testimony they would
lik~ to present? Mr. ~rdoch, do you care to make a statement?
MR. MURDOCH: Yes I would Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR DUTTON: City Clerk, will you swear in the City Manager? We'll cover him too.
City Clerk Dene M. Daoust administered the oath to Mr. Keith A. Murdoch.
Anahcim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
~JRDOCH: Mr. Mayor and gentlemen of the Council and ladies and gent~men,
you've heard a considerable discussion of the legal implications and some
of the other implications of the allegations and inferences pertaining to
some of the transactions of myself and Mr. Piersall. There never has been
any question in my mind about any of the legal implications, nor for that
matter any of the moral or ethical considerations. But, my service and
effectiveness to the City of Anaheim depends upon the integrity and the repu-
tation which I have in the community, and I'm a whole lot more concerned about
that than I am the legal implications. Personally, I very strongly support
investigations into possible transgressions on the part of public officials,
and I believe that such investigations should be made, and should be made
thoroughly, but I just as strongly expect those investigations to be complete
and to be objective. In this instance the allegations and the inferences are
not supported by the factual situation, and never have been, and I have pointed
this out previously, and I pointed it out in rather considerable detail. Very
little of that factual and specific repetition was ever published in the press
with the lone exception of the Santa Ana Register and that was only partial.
Instead, the Times and the Bulletin continued to report their allegations and
inferences as fact. None of these allegations are true nor ever were true.
Therefore I'm obligated again to refute them in detail and specifically, point
by point, so that there is no doubt in the minds of the citizens of Anaheim who
have been -- who have taken the time today and the trouble to appear here. Un-
fortunately for the community, most people will likely not have the opportunity
to read even a sketchy outline of the complete sequence of events which com-
pletely disprove the Times and Bulletin allegations and inferences. Reference
to "they could have been"; well I point out to you "they have not been", they
never were.
I'd like to first refer to the Grand Jury report and then to just a
few of the articles in the Times and in the Bulletin to point out those allega-
tions which I feel do have to be covered. I won't take your time, or anyone's
time to go through the legal areas unless there is something that needs to be
added and I certainly don't believe there is. The investigation made by the
Attorneys' Staff certainly has been complete and included things I had even
forgotten about.
First of all, in the Grand Jury report to the City Council in
November of 1972 on the first page they had a statement "the investigation
revealed no dispute with the facts set forth in the Los Angeles Times article
and Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall did have financial interests in transactions
considered by the Anaheim City Council, and that they did not publicly dis-
close their financial interest at any time". There may be some question as
to whether those transactions were considered by the City Council but there
certainly is no dispute with the statement that the facts set forth, and I
emphasize the statement "facts" set forth, in the Times are appropriate
"not the allegations nor the inferences".
Secondly they went on to state, to refer that "within the statute
of limitations there were no violations of applicable State laws thus pre-
cluding the Grand Jury from returning an indictment". And that certainly
was true. I think that the Attorneys' reports to you today point out that
even if the statute of limitations provisions were removed, there were no
violations of any of the laws, even though they did not apply at the time.
The Grand Jury also stated that "they find there are sufficient
questions regarding the ethical conduct of Mr. Keith Murdoch and Mr. Thornton
Piersall to warrant a thorough investigation by the City of Anaheim into
possible violations. Specifically the Jury finds that Mr. Murdoch and Mr.
Piersall have participated in discussions with, and given official opinions
to various local government agencies without disclosing their financial
interests. Also, the Jury finds that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall may have
profited from inside knowledge not available to the public". And it's that
latter part that I'd like to address myself to, particularly since the first
part of it has been adequately answered by the Attorney's Office. Now, I'll
get into that in just a brief moment. Because I have pointed out, I pointed
out after the Grand Jury's report was finally submitted to the Council that
the statement and the inference on the part of the Jury "may have profited
from inside knowledge" just didn't jibe with the facts. That the public
knowledge was not only of long standing but it was definite and it was
rather extensive.
73-167
AnaheiM, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22~ 1973, 1:30 P.M.
I'd better briefly call your attention to the areas of public record
regarding the various activities in which I have had an interest. Let me
quickly point out there are reports, and I have them on the desk and it referred
to them after the Grand Jury report, I did include them and present them again
to the City Council on November 21st. Those reports, those studies include the
studies of a rather large Citizen's Committee that started in 1958 and ran through
a good portion of 1958 and 1959 making specific recommendations regarding all of
the public works activities that were in the responsibility of the City. Sewer
lines, streets, water lines, electrical lines, everything was included in the
action on the part of those Citizens Committees. Not only were all the citizens
in those committees, and there were over 200 of them, very much aware of the
detail of the public works proposals but these activities of the Citizen's Com-
mittees were very very thoroughly covered in the press, in our news letter, and
in discussion on the street. That's pretty public, that is not privy information,
and never has been. Following the activities of the Citizens Committees the
recommendations were made for a series of bond issues which were voted upon;
these were voted upon in April and the bond issue authorizations did provide for
the financing of those public works activities that were recommended by the
Citizens Committees. Those were the public works activities, I suppose, that
the Times and the Bulletin have referred to that Mr. Piersall and I have recom-
mended to the City Council be implemented to benefit our properties. I point
out to you, and you heard the dates again, that all of these activities took
place before any of the purchases of property were ever made. This was not
privy information that we had nor was it any activity on our part to benefit our
properties. These recommendations were all made long before any acquisitions of
property. They were not only made as recommendations long before acquisition,
they were acted upon before any acquisitions. There may not have been any installa-
tion, those generally followed long after we had sold the properties, but the public
knowledge of these things was very very great.
We've referred briefly to this map which you can't see in detail unless
you want to take a look at it afterwards, this is not a City, a map of the City
activity, but it is the Master Plan of arterial highways adopted by the County of
Orange, with all of the amendments that have taken place at various times. I have
to point out to you that even in the original map of 1956 that this Master Plan of
arterial highways did include La Palma in most of its reaches. The subsequent ex-
tentions of La Palma were adopted all prior to any activity on the part of Mr.
Piersall or myself in each instance. I pointed that out specifically on November
21st. It is a matter of record, it is in the minutes of the City Council and I have~
of course, a copy of the report which I gave to the Council at that time a~d also
distributed to the press including the Anaheim Bulletin and the Los Angeles Times --
neither of which felt it advisable to publish.
Annexation activity, in the instances where I have been involved, the
annexation well preceded any activity on my part as far as acquisition was con-
cerned. Although the annexations may not have been completed in the two instances
where I had property involved they were started well before my acquisitions and
were held up in court in both instances so that the annexation wasn't complete by
the time I made the purchases but the elections had been held and the die was very
well cast, there wasn't any question about whether it was private knowledge, or
privy knowledge at all. It was very public knowledge including elections on the
part of the people involved in the annexations. I could go on through not just
the streets but the sewers, in detail the maps considered by the Citizens Com-
~nittees, and each one of those included every one of the lines that were subse-
quently put in. Those were not just small maps that we have copies of in the
reports on hand at the present time, but were upon maps about the size of that 4 x 8
sheet on the other side of the room, that were considered by each of the indivi-
d~al Citizens Committees at the time. Long before any purchases on the part of
~h~. Piersall or myself.
I'd like to specifically point out a few of the articles and the portions
that I do take issue upon. Sometimes I don't have the dates on these but this
article must have been written in late June right after the first meeting of the
City Council subsequent to the Times June 23rd article. In the first paragraph
they point out that'~lr. Piersall and myself, Tuesday, called for an immediate
Grand Jury investigation of evidence that they had profited substantially from
land purchases made on the basis of information not available to the public."
I have to point out there has never been any question about the purchase of
the ]ands or the facts regarding the purchase of the lands, or that we may have
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINU~ES- February 22~ 1973, 1:30 P.M
made profits on those individual purchases,but the contentions that were
made on the basis of information not available to the public is just not
true and has been shown by the factual information presented.
Secondly,'%hat both of us played key roles in planning public works
projects that boosted values of lands in which we had an interest"; let me
point out again to you that, yes, both of us have played key roles in planning
public works prior, however, to any purchases of any lands and that has been
true all the way through, and still is. On a subsequent article, this one on
July 13th, this also in the Times, the statement on the editorial page, and
I'm quoting again, "their land speculations were based on information not
available to the general public". Ladies and Gentlemen, that is an untrue
statement. In the same paragraph the statement goes on to say "~erived
profits from their positions of public trust, they also helped plan public
works projects that benefitted their holdings", I point out to you November 21st
and subsequently that this just does not jibe with the facts that the planning
for public works projects have either predated our purchases or have taken
place subsequent to our sales. That same editorial says "after these dis-
closures which were not denied, the City Council promptly gave Murdoch and
Piersall its blessing with a four to one vote, etc." They were denied, they
were denied right at that first meeting.
In the Bulletin on June 27th had an editorial in which they stated
"a scandal happened in the City government'~ Let me point out to you that the
only scandal there is, is a scandal of trying to make accusations that just
don't stand up. That isn't scandal, although I guess it is under one term of
the dictionary, slander it may be. Again, we find this type of thing running
through the various editorials of both of the newspapers stating time and time
again"because they used their public positions for private gaiH'just not true,
"because of information not available to the general public'~ just not true at
all. "They helped plan public works projects and they encouraged developments
that benefitted their holdings3' Prior to purchase or subsequent to sale, yes,
but during the time of ownershop, never.
I can probably run through the types of things that appear in both
newspapers and followed up by some of the others that continued to quote the
Times articles. The two primary things that they have alleged repeatedly
was that we acted upon information to which we were privy, or that we planned
public works to benefit our properties. I think I should point out that the
public works types of activities that can benefit properties are in the way
of storm drains -- basic storm drains sitUation was covered in report by the
Orange County Flood Control District in March of 1955 and they had a
summary report published and widely distributed prior to a bond issue in
blarch of 1956; and that was subsequently voted upon years before I had any
interest in any land and before Mr. Piersall did. Local storm drains were
covered in the Citizens Committee activities in 1958 and'59 prior to the
first purchase on my part. They could have been water lines -- water lines
were set forth in a report to the City Council, a public report incidentally,
in September 20, 1957 and that was reviewed by the Citizens Committee. That
was three years before any purchase which I made and more than that before
any purchases by Mr. Piersall. Or maybe they're talking about sewer --
The County Sanitation District Board publicly received a report and recommenda
tion for major sewer trunks in August of 1956, four years before any purchase,
or nearly four years before any purchase. Those lines were under construc-
tion, actually, through the area in which the first purchase which I made was
involvedo As far as local sewers are concerned those were the sewers that I
previously referred to as being covered in detail by the Public Works Citi-
zens Capital Improvement Committee in 1958 and '59. So maybe we're talking
abo~t streets and highways, -- the Master Plan of activities, which is behind
me, adopted in 1956 did cover the streets and highways that were included in
that first area, La Palma and Amaheim Road, shown as arterials. In 1959 the
plan was amended to show La Palma running all the way out to Imperial and
the indications were that that would run somewhat beyond Imperial but its a
little hazy as to just where that termination point was. These also were
reviewed by the Citizens Committee prior to the first purchase. Or, if it
wasn't any of those public works or beneficial projects then perhaps it was
electrical -- and I have to point out to you that on April 27, 1959, still
many months prior to the first acquisition, the Bechtel Corporation sub-
mitted its report to the City Council which covered both the immediate plan
and the longer range Master Plan, which also covered the northeast area and
covered the northeast substation and all the rest of the details. These
/3- 169
California - COJIN(:II, MINUTI,]S - I;~,hr~,'lr~ "') 197'~ 1:30 P.M.
were al.~o review~,d hv the t:iti×~,ns Co.,.it:l(,,,:; i. 1958 mul ~59, prior I~ tI~.
l irst ;tcqtii~il ion. I jt~Nt can't r~':lllv c~.~c~,iw, of wl~at kind .[ proj~.(:ts
can possihlv h,, I'oJt. Fl-t,(J EO, ~hey ].st: ;ll't'l~l t'lll,ri.. Ew,rythtng that
done was dolle p.hliclv ;md was done, no~ dur/n~ Lbe time of ownership,
¢~her well prior to or subsequent. ~o the sale in every instance_ 1~ i~ was
zOn[l]g, the matter of zoning in these areas was very well established and on
~n my ~upo~L ~o the Cou~j~.
Thc, re has been a rather substantial inference that the purchase of
tile parcel of property by Mr. Walker, Mr. DeDapper and myself east of the
North American acquisition was done on the basis of information not available
to the public, and of course the inference that this was adjacent to or part of
their thinking at the present time. I have taken the trouble to check with
some of the people with whom I dealt with at North American at that time to
see whether they had any knowledge of any expansion. I certainly did not but
I felt that very possibly there was some indication to someone, not me but to
someone perhaps, that they were going to expand and the Times article certainly
indicated that one of the realtors involved knew of an expansion and so advised
me, or that certainly I should have known that they were going to expand. I
checked with tile person who was responsible for that transaction to see whether
perhaps I was wrong, that perhaps I did have some information, or could have
had some information, I knew that I didn't have. He stated very flatly that
he personally recommended to the President of the corporation that they acquire
some additional land at the time they were purchasing the original 80 acres and
he was turned down flatly on the basis that they had all the land that they
were going to need in that area and there was no point in their going in for
any more. He was the person responsible for real estate transactions for North
American and there was no expansion plan in the minds of the officials of North
American at that time. As the months developed, as I think all of us now know,
North American did expand, and expanded far enough to include a portion of the
property which I had purchased but that information was not known at the time
that I purchased it.
I really am at a little loss to try and answer some of the vague
accusations. The allegations continue to state,"they could have been".
Truly ladies and gentlemen, they could have been. I could have been dis-
honest in this thing. I was not. I very carefully refrained from using my
responsibility or any of the information which I have had for my own personal
benefit. I have invested in some property in the City, and fortunately in
some instances, have made a profit. I have not taken advantage of the City
in any way, I have not used City funds to do this contrary to some of the
statements that I have heard. All I'm saying is that the allegations and
the inferences are completely untrue and I think you now have sufficient
facts before you to satisfy you or anyone that there has been no dishonesty
or taking advantage of the City in any of the dealings involving myself and,
I believe, Mr. Piersall as well. If you have any questions ladies and
gentlemen
MAYOR DUTTON: We have one Mr. Murdoch, you mentioned a gentlemen in charge of real
estate transactions for North American hut didn't give his name.
MR. MURDOCH: His name is Mr. Pehrson, Don Pehrscn.
,MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you. Any questions.
MR. MURDOCH: I might point out, there were others that were active in the early
acquisitions and expansions, they could be checked with just as well. I'm not
asking anyone to take my word for this sort of thing, if anyone wants to check
that out they are certainly welcome to.
MAYOR DUTTON: Thought someone would ask it before the day's over so thought I'd
better ask it now. Anyone of the Council have any questions of Mr. Murdoch?
Thank you Mr. Murdoch.
Mr. Piersall do you care to make a statement?
MR. PIERSALL: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR DUTTON: City Clerk, will you swear in Mr. Piersall?
,*p_~.LL~9_i_~n!,, Calilornia - COLtNCll, MINIlTI,;S - February 22~ 197'_~)~_1:'~0 P.M.
City Clc,k Ik'nc M. I)mmst administcrt,d tl~u oath Lo Mr. Thornton
l'it'rsa[ 1 .
~. PIERSALL: Mr. Mayor, fellow Councilmen, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going
to repeat many of the comments that Mr. Murdoch made, they are relevant to
the parcels of property in ~ich I invested. I think I'd be remiss today
if I didn't at least repeat one statement which keeps appearing and re-
appearing in the papers time and again and that's the statement of fact that
Mr. Murdoch and I profited from inside information or from our position and
knowledge that wasn't available to the general public. This I deny, and it is
not true and I am encouraged to see such a detailed study by the City Attorney's
Office who investigated these various comments that were made by the Grand
Jury. The statement does keep appearing, as a statement of fact and not as
an allegation, and it is not true.
I'm going to be very brief. Eight months ago tomorrow when the Times
story appeared I made a statement that in my 15 years with the City of Anaheim
all of the actions that I have taken were in the best interests of the City
of Anaheim. I can truthfully say that I have not used my position, I will
never do so and I would expect that the three investigations that have oc-
curred, The District Attorneys, the Grand Jurys and the City Attorneys Office
would somehow be enough proof to anybody that would believe in the facts and
the investigation.
There's another thing that I want to say and it's something I
appreciate and I want to make a public statement of the fact. During the
eight months that this story has appeared in the paper I've had many notes
and verbal comments regarding confidence in the City of Anaheim and Mr.
Murdoch and myself and I want to publicly thank everyone who has taken the
effort to reinforce their confidence in Mr. Murdoch and myself. I would
answer any questions.
>~YOR DUTTON: Any questions of Mr. Piersall? Thank you Mr. Piersall. I will
close this hearing then. One moment. Mr. A. J. Schutte, he's the former
Mayor of this City, along about the time these allegations occurred. Would
you swear in this former Mayor, his tenure has run out on being sworn in,
he has to do it all over again.
City Clerk Dene M. Daoust administered the oath to Mr. A. J. Schutte.
MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Mayor and Honorable City Council I come here today with the
thought of defending Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall, but after being here and
hearing all of the reports they need no defense, absolutely none. It's a
pitiful thing that when a man is elected on the City Council, or takes an
important position in the City Administration, that with a lot of people that
immediately says "he's a crook" "he's open for bribe", ladies and gentlemen
I've served 17 years on this City Council with Mr. Murdoch, and during all
that time there has never been anyone that raised their little finger trying
to throw a bribe, nor do I know if anybody ever did any of the other Councilmen.
It's just too bad the attitute that they take. If we're going to have a good
City it would be better that we put the best of construction on everything in-
stead of finding little picayunish faults and pointing at somebody from the
top of their house "he's a crook", he's the man you'd better watch that does
that, I've always found to be a truth. The thing that Mr. Murdoch mentioned
here about the sewage problem, the sewer line. I was on the Orange County
Sanitation District as one of the Directors at that time. That recommendation
came from the Officers of the Sanitation District, they presented it to the
Board and we approved of it. That sewer line would have went in whether Mr.
Murdoch, Mr. Piersall, or anybody had bought land there, we needed it, we knew
it, we needed it for the development of that area. As far as La Palma Avenue
and the referred to things Mr. Piersall bought.. La Palma Avenue we had been
talking about and working on very hard to try to get that established one way
or another but there were a lot of problems connected with it to make it go
on through. I wish you people would hear and see and talk to the men that
have bought big industries in Anaheim. The first one was -- The General
Motors, Delco Remy -- Mr. Murdoch worked out with them, and we got the utili-
ties out there. Then Mr. Murdoch made the remark about Autonetics, I was
there, I was Mayor of Anaheim at that time. Santa Ana had announced that
they were going to Santa Ana, down there at the sugar factory, knew it was all
cut and dried. We were working with a Real Estate man from Fullerton that was
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
working with Autonetics to buy that 80 acres of land. They bought that
finally, and we worked with them and they bought it for $9,000.00 an acre,
I know it as well as if it was today. Mr. Murdoch said that when they
bought that piece of land out there, tie did and him and a few others, the
statement always was that nobody knew anything about it, I knew it, so did
a lot of other people. We knew about it, but when does a time come when a
man wants to buy a piece of land that he has to tell everybody in the City
of Anaheim about it, they never do that anywhere. The only way that Mr.
Murdoch and those other two fellows could have bought that piece of land is
if the owner of it wanted to sell it, that is the only time it could be done.
Ladies and Gentlemen it is time that we pull ourselves together and
appreciate what a man like Mr. Murdoch did for Anaheim. I get just a little
bit touched when I see that a man like Mr. Murdoch, that has put in his time,
I've seen him work 'til four o'clock in the morning to finish a project, then
tomorrow there was something el~e - he was there, I was there with him. We
did those things. And now for people to throw slanted remarks at Mr. Murdoch
is just a little bit more than I can take.
Mr. Piersall is the same way, the City Council the same way, they
working for the good of Anaheim, oh we had arguments when we were on the City
Council, but when the chips were down it always was "what's for the best of
Anaheim", and all you people that are out there that are throwing slanted
remarks at them, they had better stop to think right from this pulpit. I was a
member of that congregation, 47 years I've heard our pastors tell us many many
times that a good Christian will always put the best of construction on every-
thing. I saw letters in the Anaheim Bulletin that were judging, the men up
there, and then the othe~ thing was they were quoting religious scripture. If
they had just read one verse other than what they were quoting and that is
"Judge not, that you not be judged".
With that, Mr. Mayor, I think it's about all I have to say, z'~ a
little bit touched about this thing, it is a serious matter for anybody to be
accused as ~. Murdoch has been when it's unjust. Thank you.
MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you very much Mr. Schutte. I will now close this hearing.
COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I move we adjourn.
MAYOR DUTTON: Let's make a determination, as far as I'm concerned, it's been my
fervent hope after all these months to get this thing to a conclusion, to get
it behind us. I'm sick to death of reading about these allegations from time
to time in the newspapers, continually crucifying a couple of men who never had
an opportunity, and haven't had to this day, had an opportunity to face their
accusers out there. This is what this was all about consistent with the
desires of the Grand Jury that this City Council do, make an investigation
into this matter and do it publicly so that the people in the City of Anaheim
who were interested might have that opportunity to be here and to hear for
themselves, and to hear the accusers who unfortunately have not chosen to
stand up and be counted, would rather do it out there in the dark somewhere,
so, I would move in light of action here to get this behind the City of Anaheim
and to get us back where we were, where we belong in the first place, and I
would move that it be the finding of this City Council that the allegations
that were expressed here today be found to have no foundation in fact; and
that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall be completely absolved of all the allegations.
COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: i'll second the motion.
MAYOR DUTT~N: Is there any discussion?
COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Mr. Mayor I'd like to make a statement.
MAYOR DUTTON: Yes Sir.
COUNCILM~ SNEEGAS: I will reiterate a statement that I made before. One of the
things that interested me in City Administration, the City Council position,
was the many statements I've heard in the 15 or 16 years I've lived in the
City, I've been fed these things considerably and took them w~th a grain of
salt having lived a type of business life that I was confronted w~.th many
allegations all day long I could only take those that I could substantiate
for many years, as time went on we got up to this particular point that came
Anabcim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973~ 1:30 ~.M.
out, I suppose I shocked a few people on both sides when I voted "no confidence"
and I suppose at this time if I was to think back maybe an "abstaining" vote
would have been more appropos to the conditions because I didn't have enough
information to make an affirmative decision on so I could only make one that
was of "no confidence". I also learned something in the years of dealing with
people, if you're going to base opinions or decisions on anything, base them
on fact, not personalities, not innuendos, but fact.
I think that it is safe to say that it wouldn't matter who the
City Council appointed to investigate this, we would be criticized by some
people who would feel that because we appointed them, they had to rule
a certain way. In the years of my contact with the City Attorney's Office,
I've had my disagreements, but I've also had great respect because most of
the time I've disagreed I found out they. were right and I have no qualms
whatsoever in saying that I believe the contents of this report by the City
Attorney's Office is very very factual, it points out the facts as they are,
there are those who would like to make something out of what is possibly
there but I would only invite them to attempt to deal with only the facts,
not personal feelings.
I would not only like to second or third your motion but I would
also like to offer at this time a vote of confidence in both of these
gentlemen as they were accused.
>~YOR DUTTON: Fine, we'll ---
COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: I'd like to make a brief statement that I've had the
privilege and opportunity to work with the City Attorney's Office for many
many years, as long as they have been in office, I've known all of these
fine gentlemen since they started to work and I think they've done one real
fine job in going through the testimony, the evidence that was gathered by
the District Attorney's Office by the Orange County Grand Jury,and sifting
out all of this and, in my opinion, going through their statements today
they have answered every point, every accusation, showing that both sides of
it, what would of had to been done for them to be guilty. They certainly
went through it with a fine tooth comb and they have, in my mind,presented
both sides of what it would take to be guilty, and they certainly have found
that they have no substantiation in any way. shape or form of any evidence of
wrongdoing by either Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall, and certainly knowing these
gentlemen, knowing their honesty and integrity as they are, I know that if
there had been something in there that would show a violation, a breach of
trust for either one of them, they would have had the nerve to come out and
they would have said so. I certainly want to congratulate them for making
this fair and impartial hearing on this testimony that the District Attorney
and the Orange County Grand Jury have gathered,and in my opinion they stand
vindicated of any wrongdoing of any shape or form and I would like to third,
or fourth or fifth the motion that you made on these fine gentlemen.
MAYOR DUTTON: Fine, thank you very much. Mr. Stephenson and I would like to second
your commendation of the legal staff ~r the fine report that they did have.
I pointed it out publicly before and would like to do it today too in
reference to remarks about the Citizen's Capital Improvement Committee of
1958 and '59 I was one of those, in the utilities end of it~ and I knew
what went on in that area and I testified to that at the City Council but
you never heard any mention of it I happened to have been involved in it and
so Ii know that that particular phase o~ the allegations were completely
false. Any additional corament.
~iOUNCI~MAN THOM: I might just as well toss in my two-cents worth, Jack, and I'd
rather explain my votes before I make them than rather try to explain them
afterwards. I think my position has been very apparent to everybody. I
can't in good conscience accuse the City Attorney's Office of not doing a
job because I know they do the job they're charged to do. But I have taken
a position previously, I maintain it now, that I don't believe it has the
objectivity that I can prove to the citizens of this community it should
have, and I still feel very strongly that it should have been placed ~n a
d~sinterested third party not connected w~tb the City~ such as w~th the
Attorney General. For t¥~at reason I must vote "no" on your f~rst motion
73-]/3
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 22, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Secondly, on the vote of confidence, I cannot say that 'i distrust
or would call either of these gentlemen liars, I certainly will not do it,
it is the nagging doubt in my mind as the citizens indicated to me that must
be reflected here again, and until such time as this body would put this
matter in the hands that I feel it should be in to prove it to the citizens,
and where we have no part of it, I will again have to not go along with that
vote.
MAYOR DUTTON: There has been a motion and a second, it be the finding of this
City Council that the allegations that were expressed here today to be found
to have no foundation in fact, and that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall be
completely absolved of all the allegations, all in favor:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton
Thom
None
MOTION CARRIED.
And then we had a second motion and a second to that, that a vote
of confidence be extended to Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall, all in favor:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton
Thom
None
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNME1Yr: Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn, Councilman Dutton seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:25 P.M.
City Clerk
City Halla Anaheima California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27a 1973a 1:30 PoMo
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNC II2~EN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph ~. Geisler
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona Mo Farrens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
ASSISTANT DEVELOPMBNT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend John J. Fast of the Free Methodist Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Dutton acknowledged the presence of Mr. Melbourne A. Gauer, 39-year
member of the City Planning Commission, and made reference to an article in
the current issue of the Anaheim Newsletter relating to his experiences during
this period.