Paso Robles begrudgingly permits transparency, right to petition

January 24, 2024

By KAREN VELIE

Paso Robles city staff loosened the reins on applicants applying for the contract to operate concessions at the Paso Robles Municipal Airport, but only after outside attorneys found their actions violated the California Constitution.

Initially, Paso Robles administrators penned a request for proposal to manage the highly lucrative airport concession that barred applicants from speaking with city council members outside of public meetings. Two companies, Loyd’s Aviation and ACI Jet, provided lengthy proposals.

City staff then reviewed the proposals and produced a staff report that failed to provide detailed information from the two proposals, The city also refused to allow council members or the public to review proposals.

The California Constitution Article 1 Section 3 says, “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” Even if the applicants wanted to discuss their concerns with council members, the city’s request for proposal barred them talking with council members outside of their oversight at public meetings.

During a joint meeting on Dec. 19, both members of the Airport Commission and City Council said they had not been provided spreadsheets, proposals or detailed financial information before being asked to make a decision. The City Council then voted to delay the procurement process because staff reports lacked detailed financial information about the two applicants.

City Manager Ty Lewis said that the applicants had proceeded forward with the application process, and as such, approved of the language barring them from petitioning public officials.

“I cannot speak to the legal opinion you’ve received,” Lewis wrote in a Dec. 29 email to CalCoastNews. “As you’re aware we rely heavily on the the legal advice from our legal teams to frame numerous policies and procedures aimed at ensuring a legally defensible procurement process. The city is trying to create a level playing field to avoid undue influence, discrimination, or other unfair advantages for request for proposal respondents.”

The city attorney, Elizabeth Hull, contends the California Constitution Article 1 Section 2, which provides the ability to speak freely, and the rights in Article 1 Section 3 regarding petitioning public officials do not apply in this situation.

“Neither section is implicated by a business which is attempting to secure a contract from a governmental entity,” Hull wrote in a Dec. 30 email to CalCoastNews. “The city is undertaking a bidding process that is designed to be both fair to the participants and results in a transaction that is in the best interest of the city and the community. To do this, a confidential negotiation process is in the best interest of the community.”

Even so, on Jan. 16, city staff amended the request for proposal. Both the section barring lobbying and the section prohibiting contact with city officials were removed from the agreement.

Sign up for breaking news, alerts and updates with Cal Coast News Top Stories.