LYNWOOD — The City Council next week will consider adopting a new code of conduct resolution that will apply for all elected officials as well as for members of city commissions and advisory councils.

The new resolution will clarify how individuals should behave as representatives of the city, as well as outline ethical expectations of being a city representative. The resolution also will suggest behavior guidelines for council members during council meetings, including a recommendation to ban texting during meetings.

City Attorney Fred Galante said that about half of the cities his law firm represents have implemented codes of conduct rules and that it is not uncommon for cities to have such a resolution in place.

Galante said the new resolution lets individuals know that as city representatives, they represent the city as a whole, not their sole interest.

Councilman Jim Morton requested the item be placed on the agenda as soon as possible.

“Every city needs to have a code of conduct in place,” he said. “I don’t know why we don’t have one already, considering all of the misbehavior by council members we dealt with in the past.

“When cities don’t have rules and regulations, that’s when they get in trouble, because they’re shooting from the hip. … They’re doing whatever they want to do when they want to do it.”

In his research, Morton said, council members only have the authority to act during council meetings. They don’t have any authority over department heads or employees.

“Council members are only to give direct direction to the city manager and to the city attorney,” he said. “Not special counsel, not consultants … and we are not the negotiators, that’s what we have the city manager here for.”

Morton said he took an interest in implementing a code of conduct after learning that the city of Carson had recently adopted one.

“There [are] some council members who just think that they have no limitations,” he said. “Some people need direction. … Otherwise they start having delusions of grandeur … and they think they can run around the city and do whatever they want and spend the city’s money however they want.”

No one would confirm it, but the new resolution may also prohibit council members from meeting with special counsel attorneys on a private basis.

The new resolution arrives on the heels of heated discussions at City Hall over legal bill invoices that detail specific meetings Mayor Pro Tem Aide Castro had in person or by telephone conference with attorneys — not associated with Galante’s office — handling the Angeles Fields case, among others.

The invoices show that Castro met with or telephone conferenced with attorneys from Kane, Ballmer and Berkman on six separate occasions — all of which were charged to the city, with a one hour meeting costing the city $1,680.

As a member of the City Council, Castro said she had every right to meet with the attorneys because she has every right to be informed about the cases and because she was a witness in the Angeles Fields case, in which she and resident Joanette Gutierrez filed an injunction against former council members and their actions revolving around Angeles Fields.

“As council members, we can meet with our city attorney, we can meet with special counsel, especially if they are handling a case, so in my case, whenever they were dealing with Angeles Fields, it was my original case, I’m pretty much a witness, so of course they are going to have to talk to me over my colleagues,” Castro said.

“And that’s basically what it is … the city attorney does it, and every council member has met individually with attorneys, just like we do with consultants. … We don’t have to ask for permission to talk to our attorneys, or ask for permission to talk to our city manager. We may have to follow protocol when we have a concern in reference to a department head, we do that through our city manager, but I don’t have to ask my city manager for permission to speak to my attorney.”

Castro said that the attorneys have also met with Gutierrez on the matter.

“The problem is that Aide [Castro] is not the only council member in Lynwood,” said a resident, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. “All council members should be notified when one council member is meeting privately with attorneys, especially attorneys on this case. My question is: Why did Aide not tell anyone about these meetings. She tells everybody everything, so this tells me she was hoping no one ever found out about them.”

Asked if she knew whether Morton’s request for a code of conduct resolution was connected to the controversy over Castro meeting with attorneys on an individual basis, Mayor Maria Santillan said she didn’t know. “That’s something you will have to ask Jim [Morton],” she said. “All I know is that when I am asked to place an item on the agenda, I don’t dispute it.”

Santillan said she didn’t feel comfortable talking about the legal bill invoices, citing attorney-client privilege. But when asked if it was customary for council members to meet with attorneys any time they want, Santillan said, “As long as we meet and are responsible about it, I don’t see a problem,” she said. “We need to be mindful that these attorneys charge for their time, including phone calls.

“My contact with directors, managers and attorneys is usually through the city manager. I think it’s good business practice to give direction at council meetings and any questions or concerns should be handled through the city manager. This way there is no ‘micro managing’ and all council members give input.”

Galante said he could not comment on the invoices, and added that he can never comment on discussions between council members that take place in a closed session meetings.

In regards to council members meeting with attorneys regularly, Galante said, the council as a whole has the privilege of meeting with him at any given time.

So if the council as a whole has that privilege, shouldn’t the council as a whole have the privilege of knowing when and where and what their colleagues are talking to attorneys about?

Galante said the city does not have a policy that specifies that. Other than that, he said, he couldn’t comment further.

Asked the same question, Santillan said, she agreed.

“Attorneys aren’t cheap and the whole council should be made aware of everything.”

The code of conduct resolution is a good idea “if we follow the rules,” Santillan said. “However, I don’t really think this is necessary because we are adults and we should use common sense. However, one of my colleagues asked that we discuss the item and I feel comfortable placing it on the agenda.”

Castro said it makes her uncomfortable when people start complaining about certain things when things are not “to their convenience, and it’s not what they want to hear, then they have a problem with it.”

With that said, Castro said that every council member has the authority to pick up the phone and call one of the attorneys and ask “what’s going on with this case … give me the details,” Castro said.

In addition, Castro said, the city manager and the city attorney knew about her communication with attorneys from Kane, Ballmer and Merkman.

However, she also met with them on a totally different matter, that had nothing to do with Angeles Fields.

To that, Castro said, “If people are not going to take the time to give me the right information, then I’m going to make my own time, and I’m going to do my research,” she said. “Rather than listening to hearsay, people’s allegations and [rumors] … I’d rather learn about things on my own.”

A code of conduct will be a good thing for the city, Castro said, adding that the city has had some problems with residents’ and commissioners’ behavior.

“Making it official,” she said about the new resolution applying to everyone, even council members, “is an us ‘leading by example’ type of thing.”

Castro said she has seen a draft of the resolution, but isn’t sure how it will look on Tuesday, since staff still has until Thursday to submit it to the council.

“It’s still being worked on,” she said. “It has to be within legal limits, too, because you can’t violate people’s personal rights … or freedom of speech.”