Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey’s lawsuit against the city he represents, which started as a crusade against a city manager contract Bailey said was too costly to taxpayers, has cost taxpayers nearly $254,000 so far — and the price tag could rise much higher.

That’s the amount the city says it has paid outside law firm Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley as of June 30 to defend against Bailey’s suit. That doesn’t count another $106,000 the city has spent fighting a separate lawsuit by resident Ben Clymer, which similarly argues that Bailey had the authority to veto former City Manager John Russo’s contract — a claim the City Council disputes.

Nor does the figure count fees for the mayor’s attorneys. Bailey estimates that’s over $100,000 already — and he thinks the city should pick up the tab.

“They’re representing me in my official role,” he said. “The city could have prevented this and they can still end it any time they want. ‘We recognize the mayor has veto power in this capacity.’ Period. That’s all it takes.”

Though the city manager was fired in 2018, both lawsuits continue.

What can the mayor veto?

The dispute stems from the Riverside City Council’s 5-2 approval of Russo’s new seven-year contract, which included yearly 3% raises and a $675,000 home loan.

Bailey ended the council meeting in February 2018 by announcing he was vetoing the contract. His formal veto message argued it was fiscally irresponsible to renegotiate the contract before it expired and to pay Russo so much.

City Attorney Gary Geuss said the mayor didn’t have the authority to veto the contract, and if Bailey disagreed, he should sue. So Bailey went to court, pledging to fundraise for the lawsuit.

“I promised the public I would pay for it … when my attorneys estimated it would cost $20,000 to $25,000,” Bailey said this month. “They assumed the city wanted to get this done.”

Bailey and Geuss each say legal maneuvers by the other have ballooned the time and money dedicated to the lawsuit.

The latest dispute is whether to combine Bailey’s lawsuit with Clymer’s.

Geuss said that’s the most efficient option.

“The city will pay less in outside money, as will Bailey and Clymer, by not litigating all the issues a second time,” he said.

But Bailey’s legal team sees the issues as distinct. He only seeks to establish that the mayor has veto power over contracts — something a judge should be able to decide quickly, he said. Clymer’s also seeks to invalidate Russo’s contract.

Clymer couldn’t be reached Friday, July 12.

The city’s charter gives the mayor power to veto “any formal action” of the City Council, then lists certain exceptions — none of which anyone argues apply in this case.

But another section of the same document states that “the city manager shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council” — not the mayor. The decision over whether to extend Russo’s contract, therefore, rested with the council, and Bailey had no authority to veto that decision, Geuss said.

How expensive is this?

How expensive the lawsuit is depends on the context.

At the time the City Council fired him amid uproar over the contract, Russo’s annual salary was $323,946. His total compensation, including benefits, was calculated at $439,860 in 2017.

The council then offered the top job to Al Zelinka for $295,000 per year, making Zelinka’s total compensation $360,000, according to city staff.

That’s a difference of less than $100,000.

But the cost of the lawsuits is small in comparison with the city’s other legal activity. In the 2017-18, the city spent $1.4 million on outside attorneys, an increase of about 10% from the previous year, according to a report from the City Attorney’s Office.

And Riverside’s overall budget this year is about $280 million in general fund money — balanced, though deficits loom soon.

The city has paid elected officials’ legal bills before.

It happened twice in Geuss’ tenure, he said. The city agreed to pay $1,055 in attorneys’ fees for Councilman Mike Soubirous in 2016 and paid a $40,000 settlement to Councilman Paul Davis in 2015. Both were targeted by investigations that the City Council determined were politically motivated.

A key difference, Geuss said, is that Bailey initiated this lawsuit — though Bailey notes that he did so after Geuss told him his only recourse was to sue.

The decision of whether to pay Bailey’s legal fees will come down to the City Council.

Clymer’s attorney, Robert Tyler, acknowledged when he filed the lawsuit that it could cost taxpayers more in the short-term than just dropping it once Russo was fired. But the ultimate cost could keep rising if government officials get the message that citizen watchdogs aren’t vigilant, Tyler said.

“If we don’t stop it on this occasion, what’s to stop the next city from doing it again, or this city from doing something worse?” he asked at the time. “Unfortunately, it takes lawsuits like this to hold bureaucrats accountable.”

The lawsuit comes as a city commission considers changes to the city charter that could clarify the issue. Voters would have to approve any suggested changes in November 2020.