Monday, June 20, 2011
Page 7
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Ipsen’s Explanation of Term-Limits Suit Is ‘Incomplete,’ ‘Inaccurate’
Dear Editor:
Jones & Mayer would like to set the record straight regarding comments made by a candidate for district attorney, Steve Ipsen, on the issue of term limits appearing in MetNews on June 10, 2011. Mr. Ipsen’s representations about the legal action we took on behalf of the District Attorney are incomplete and inaccurate in some repects.
As to the legal action referenced by Mr. Ipsen, Jones & Mayer first represented the Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca in 2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court Case People ex rel, LeRoy D. Baca v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC299486. The action was to challenge an invalid initiative charter amendment, approved by voters in 2002, which had been proposed by the Board of Supervisors to impose term limits on its own members, as well as on the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and Assessor. The California Constitution and statutory law permit counties to impose term limits only on the Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff, District Attorney, or Assessor. After we succesfully challenged the invalid initiative charter amendment on behalf of the Sheriff, in a quo warranto legal action overseen by the California Attorney General, it then became necessary to clarify by court order that the Offices of the Los Angeles District Attorney and Assessor were similarly situated and also not subject to the invalid initiative charter amendment. The second, similar quo warranto action was successfully brought to make the County Charter consistent as to all of these County officers.
Very truly yours,
KRISTA MACNEVIN JEE
Copyright 2011, Metropolitan News Company