rise to their decision to reinstate they found out that the city made the libel for other damages for concealed evidence in the first series of litigations involving this disciplinary case therefore the city requested that their tourney's enter into or offer unknown up to that point in time of the agreement mr valentino agreed to do this there was negotiated as into the reinstatement agreements and the terms and conditions of how he would come back to work but the first part of that as our service rules that address reinstatement should have gone to the civil service commission purse to be reinstated now the civil service commission provides a lead advisory opinion to the city council for paperwork to transfer a handgun to mr christie and they rescinded the discipline of terminations but then the city council took the matter up and i've said you know we think fifteen volumes and then they said their decision was no we're still going to terminate them but they're not changing the findings of fact so in essence the city council terminated based on the handgun charge they wrote which was one of twenty seven is that right correct they found that he had been truthful during the internal affairs investigation that he had not interfered with the g e a investigation and in fact had further that investigation along based on his actions a car st didn't even think that the firearm exchange was a problem no big continued to say they'd changed it they clarified that they believe that was in the ministry of error because a new law had been passed as far as you now look at the case and they had their city attorney or their contractor attorneys research the entire case they brought in all the litigation files they gave the first firm that had prosecuted this plenary case took some time and then gave him the files and based on their review of the case and interviewing the other employees not just of balancing the employees of the city and city officials they determined that there may have been some evidence that was not provided that should have been turned over or other facts and information based on that the city council believed there was an injustice done to mr galaxy and that they were going to rescind his termination and reduce that his employment but because that's it it's a different city council now right right there works out it reviews it believes an injustice occurred one of the city council people that was marriage or yell for i believe he initially voted to reinstate mr bouncing when they first heard the case they remember the process decision that in justice occurred they found all this and they found information that information had been concealed and they were also aware of other possible claims on defamation that had transpired since the litigation having  claims about wages so he entered into that then two years after she's reinstates the payroll and possibly a year after he's receive it is sworn police officer a new city council comes in the prior city council recalled a new city council comes down and soon as they take power they notify mr johnson you're now going to be terminated as we believe your contract was against public policy they never referred to it in their documents the code section that it as a see also after south bay senior housing so it appears to me that if that the district court because you didn't really argue it and they put it as a c also wasn't really putting those two relative to each other it's it's you know what your position about that is south even good law after the city of orange or or how does this relate does your need to do discovery i believe one believe it does relate to the city council's ability to enter into settlement negotiations after they reinstate it why didn't well why didn't you argue it if you look at some of the motions that we had done for additional discovery we had four court days to prepare our opposition based on how the motion was filed and served and the timing of the positions and everything else quite frankly i must say i  contract and we had pointed out that he continued his employment what is the record tell us about what his duties were between july two when the time he was terminated the record will show you that in july of zero two he took the office for police officer and for the police departments prior to that time that approximately your period before that what's in the record that tells us what his duties were after july of two i don't believe there's anything in the record that talks about what duties he had the settlement agreement talks or the reinstatement agreement talks that he will be any administrative or non sworn position until he meets these requirements and then after he meets the requirements question about what would happen to you terminate him there would have to be a good cost face on something that happened during his employment also the city would have to comply with all the police officer bill of rights government posts actually california government thirty three hundred at sec and one of the i'd like to reserve some time for reply you may do so well what what's your key argument at this stage in terms of the ultimate action by the city we believe peace officer under the government of section for over from july of two thousand to two made two thousand and three there are procedural rules that they must follow their civil service rules the procedure a bill of rights and due process in order to t employment they never did what about this issue about the authority to sign the contract we believe the municipal code has several sections that we've cited in our paper that allows the city manager or whoever's appointed an interim city manager acting city manager to sign contracts that were ordered and approved by the city council we believe that actually happened here and that's the city council and their minutes reinstatement was invalid everything that flowed from that reinstatement was invalid he did not take he did not address the point that the city council had already reinstated them f not move for summary judgment based on this argument why should we reach that issue in the first instance we will we were still conducting discovery with both the contract city attorney we had depositions everything else so i think you have two separate issues i thought when the city brought this that they were doing a high risk move because if the reinstatement is found to be at the city council action and they now argue that the reinstatement agreement is invalid that m any further questions we're very familiar with the city of orange case the city of orange case is in applicable to our situation but if you look at the policy behind the case it absolutely supports the cd it's not applicable because in the city of orange it was actually the city that was seeking to enforce a contract against an individual and was able to do so the distinction and it was his major distinction is it was not an individual seeking to enforce a contract against an agency in the policy and significance behind that case is absolutely illustrates and points out the statutory the mandatory statutory requirements that must be met without waiver to contract to hold a city to a contract and in that case they further addressed the public policy which was in that particular case the contractor had received  discovery that the city council relied on the city code as written in two thousand and one as providing the city manager with authority to sign contracts when he established compliance with government forty six ok you know because that's not  establish in city manager you didn't sign a contract it was the developer the director of development services that is not permitted in the city code and what the mazeppa and orange county and south bay cases that i think is absolutely critical here is you must follow the statutes period in those cases further say if you're trying to do something that doesn't isn't directly prohibited by the of fact with respect to this very usually you seem to assert as as an absolute dixit that only the mayor can sign no i i'm not quite sure i'm persuaded of that you shouldn't we i j q evidence on that issue and find crowd at that time to state that the city manager could sign there's no evidence of that i don't know what they were interpret ing i know with the statutes both the government code and what the city municipal code states and those codes state exactly the requirements that must be followed in to address your honor under the southgate code if delegate in the city manager may sign a contract that was not done here either so my point is that even if we were to accept of helen's premising representations here he's seeking for you to authorize an unauthorized manner of contracting in the cases are clear that cannot be done i had i don't see how what with all that we've discussed about this how this could be a frivolous lawsuit and seventy five thousand dollars an attorney's face i mean  i'm having trouble getting my head around all of this and that you know that right there tells me that there's something to i mean the judge here you cited south bay the judge just said it was void end of story suggests that there's something in the record that connects this to some other parties of which we are aware in this record the person who negotiated the contract on behalf of the city was someone who was posing as a city attorney who was in fact is var is significant and you're saying that that's the basis for rejecting the validity of the contract i don't understand your the rejecting the validity of the contract rests in two separate bases the first  the one we discussed the statutory requirements and the signature that wasn't met the second is the substance of the contract on its face reviewing the contract shows the whole purpose of this agreement was to reinstate is being is mandatory for reinstated employees at the year with ten thirty one i know that we're talking you know new hires and they talk and there's a case that talks about possibly if someone's transferred me or possibly to another position what's your best authority on it applies to reinstated employees the fact that in the record three separate background investigators did background investigations  thirty one and failed him and more significantly i think in this record we have letters from mr glaze to captain todd telling him to limit the amount the amount of background investigation is underway ten thirty one brown one i guess what i'm here i'm struggling with here i can see the contract itself it's the reinstatement contract if we just assume for a moment does require compliance with ten thirty one but it also does some sealing of th particular instance that we're talking about now just assume for a moment i know you don't agree with this but let's just say let's assume that that the city council could reinstate someone when they could find that there were injustices that occurred i know you don't agree that that's the case here but i think that they could have the authority to do that and then you reinstate someone and maybe you found that the charges were not true that they were completely exonerated everything along those lines then what would it make that then a background investigation could go and disqualify someone from serving because of an instance that they were internally exonerated for a fight it just seems like you know how i you end up being exonerated on it then how can that dan be the reason that you don't pass a background again i mean what's the what's the purpose of having all these procedures go on well i mean does that mean because someone always said something about you and it's found not to be true that they can always bring it up and well i guess i need to address your second underlying premise that he was exonerated the first five minutes mr green's discussions about prior litigation that occurred between one nine six and two thousand that litigation all resulted in the decision by the court of appeal in the city's favor that there's no exoneration he's been judicially determined to have been terminated for good cause well there's been this superior court was different and then the and ordered findings of the civil service commission and the city council the city council never made them and when it got to the court of appeal the court of appeal just said well you're not entitled to because you filed two separate actions and you didn't tell anyone that court of appeal seemed to be irritated about that and said so you're not entitled to this technical yes i was i mean i was kind of surprised by that and that's correct and then long after any opportunity to appeal occurred was when the reinstatement occurred that decision was in two thousand it was never appealed it was never challenged it was never taken out it was a year and a half later in two thousand and one that this reinstatement took place where they were trying to relive again issues in the prior litigation ok but a real statement took place by order of a city council which presumably was properly office duly elected and all of that i mean are we challenging the validity of the decision of the city council well for purpose significance of that well the significance is when he was reinstated all year earlier no police chief would swear him in he sat at home for a year because captain todd at the time s tucson who's the chief at the time and subsequently another interim chief refused to swear him in chief lopez didn't swear him in but as he stated i only did so because rowe blaze would fire me if i didn't and we will close bro blaze was the former mayor and director city manager who's now serving ten years in prison for his misconduct at southgate notwithstanding that he was sworn in but he did not perform any duties he sat at home because no chief would have anything to do with him and he was brought in in violation of the post the department agreement three background investigators failed him so yes he got a reinstatement agreement he sent home being paid for a year finally she flow has been swear him in in a secret swearing in ceremony which is in the record but he never was what is on the record with respect to his duties after he was sworn nothing so when he says that he actually went on patrol and all that that's not in the record and when you say that he never resumed patrol activities you can't say that's not in the record either sell in fact both sides are making statements outside the record on that particular point what's in the record is he was sworn in correct ok i mean  makes it hard when everyone you know there's all sorts of stuff that's not in the record  order was intentionally drafted to avoid these other requirements that you talk about we have mr graves letter to capital two letters to captain todd at the time telling captain todd that his background investigation should not go back to the point in time when mr valentino was involved in a drug ring and auto theft his own letters and his own evidence to circumvent the background investigation that's the best evidence otherwise in addition there's in the record mr valentino did not undergo any probationary period which is a peace officer standards and training requirement he never underwent that probationary period because he couldn't pass it he never underwent a complete background investigation that's in the record because he couldn't pass it he never on the one of psych evaluation or a polygraph  i guess there but isn't that's all contested crime the standpoint that his position is that ten thirty one was different for reinstatement your position is that it has to be like a new hire i can't find any case that exactly answers that  reinstatement agreement does something to seal the instant offense which is exactly why it's substantively unlawful that our point is the agreement on its face grounds that i need a case that says that in reinstatement situation that that means that a person goes back to a background from obviously mr ballen mr valentino passed a background first then he has this situation in the middle which goes through the courts all of this time and then eventually he he achieves a reinstatement now during that period of time he's not at work for he's fired for how many years he was terminated in actually in one thousand nine hundred sixty and he was reinstated in two thousand  so why can't you read the reinstatement agreement to say ok yeah you have to go through it because we don't know what he did for ninety six to two thousand and one for all we know and i'm just saying that you know let's say he started using drugs then you know police officers can't use drugs and say from so from the ninety six to two thousand and one or he's gotten convicted of crimes or there's any number of things well that could cause them to fail a background you know at that time so why can't the reinstatement agreement be interpreted to mean that yeah you have to you know we've got to figure out what you've been doing since you were fired well and that's what mr glave was trying to limit it to right if i may if you make pardon me to correct the didn't bring in three separate background investment was the whole sticking point about what they could go into about what happened in this instance absolutely and that's where everyone was you know mr graves position was hey he got reinstated and th agreement says that this part is sealed the city's position was no even though you got reinstated we get to it we get to go into everything again and that can be a basis for a felony background  us from going into everything as is the departments and practice which is why he kept writing letters to the captain in charge of background saying you can't don't go into this reinstated the city council circumvented its own rules and government requirements to reinstate him the city council of the time that's true and when the new city council came in they just made a determination that because he had not met either the state or city requirements to terminate his contract ok canada riverside basically says that ten thirty one may not apply to all situations and there the court stated that section ten thirty one contemplates that new applicants be subject to the background investigation before they are hired but the court a recognized that section temp thirty one requirements could be imposed on a police officer transfer transferring from one agent teacher another or perhaps an officer applying for a different position with the same agency it seems that the court fell short of mandating prescribing ten thirty one year reinstatement and so what i see ten thirty once applicability here comes in the reinstatement agreement so then what does that mean you know what where the i code which further mandates that all of that all safety officers meet all post requirements as well because southgate get substantial funding for following all of these requirements so if there is any issue about the applicability of the government code to a government agency the southeast city council makes it expressly part of their own hiring process teams in order to procure the funding that comes to agencies for it was the funding ever actually threatened as a result of this kid s as a matter of fact it was there is letters that i believe in his record from post to the chief at the time stating your background investigations are and it's i'm running short on time if i may just address one other point that i think is of significance in this case i believe what the appellant's position generally is doesn't matter how i got hired if you're a public employee you're employed by statute in every case we've cited snow can m r opinion campbell those cases all hold you are only able to use the public statutory due process requirements if you obtained them appropriately and legitimately so even if we had got his argument it's our position it's better for the city because he did not meet any of the statutory requirements so that there is some evidence in the record as to him returning to his full patrol duties in regards to the questions on the post requirements there is an attorney general's opinion and i don't have the  of me i'd apologize for that indicates that you know to section two thirty one applies to new hires or to lateral officers from other agencies as was the case i believe in the riverside  that talked about they don't require a background of us to geisha but with you they recommend this that for the period of that absence that a background be done to indicate to see if there is anything that has  process he's being reinstated back to that time of discipline we've given a thirty day suspension so he never in theory left that employment so the first background finding him fit continued now what they wanted to make sure was during the interim of this terminations nothing happened that he didn't go out commit crimes there was no reason that he could no longer carry a weapon and he also was required to go through it to a requalification porus proposed any time that you're out of employment believe it's three years or more they require you to go through the requalification course he completed all those tests he was given background of this additions but one of the things i want to clarify is  continually refer to this city was limited the city was limited no the city of greek who didn't agree to this was captain todd who then became chief scott he's the one that was the in the background of us the gay sions and that we believe interfering with his background investigations raise the concern with the state and they agreed wait a minute this is what the time period was supposed to be you're asking your background a vesa gaiters because they were submitted for decision and we will hear argument in watson versus the county of los angeles