Four City Council members who sent a $10,706 legal bill to the city for payment committed a conflict of interest and should act no further on the matter at the risk of losing their council seats, according to a legal opinion from the city solicitor's office.

The opinion from Assistant Solicitor Kate DeSimone involves a bill for legal actions regarding a permit Lamar Advertising received to erect a 1,200-square-foot billboard on the Grant Street Transportation Center.

Because the permit was awarded without public bids, hearings or votes, Councilmen William Peduto, Bruce Kraus and Ricky Burgess and council President Doug Shields hired attorney Hugh McGough of Ward McGough to oppose it.

Mr. Shields said the four were forced to turn to an outside lawyer because the city's law department already was representing the zoning administrator in the matter.

Last week, council members voted 5-2 to pay the legal bill. But some members yesterday suggested that those who incurred the expense should abstain from voting, since they could be forced to pay the bill from their own pockets if the city doesn't cover it.

"I'd see a conflict of interest there, and I would abstain," said Councilman Jim Motznik, who was not part of the dispute with Lamar. The city charter says council members must not vote on anything in which they "have a personal or private interest."

Mr. Motznik said the four should have gone through a competitive process to choose a law firm, and then sought council approval before incurring the expense. If they want the bill to be paid now, they should do it out of their office allocations for staff and services, he said.

He and Councilman Patrick Dowd then sought the legal opinion.

The response, from Ms. DeSimone, bluntly said: "We caution that a conflict of interest has already occurred in this matter. The course urged here will not eradicate the conflict, but it may lessen the likelihood that someone will file an action seeking to invoke the forfeiture provision."

According to the opinion, conflicts occurred when the members introduced the bill, failed to disclose their conflict of interest, participated in the discussion and participated in the vote.

"The home rule charter spells out a truly draconian penalty for the violation," the opinion stated. " 'Members of council who violate any of the above provisions shall immediately forfeit their office.' Unfortunately, the penalty provision is applicable here."

Mr. Shields last night said he had seen the opinion and would be discussing it with his colleagues at their meeting today.

"It seems like the linchpin is a conflict of interest, and I don't know where I had that," he said. "It's pretty clear that we were acting in our capacities as members of council.

"Who am I in conflict with? What entity?" he asked incredulously.

When it was suggested that the conflict might be with his own interests, Mr. Shields said, "I'm not Doug Shields Inc. I'm Doug Shields, president of City Council. How do I have a conflict with myself?"

Mr. Burgess last night said he had not seen the opinion and could not comment on it, but Mr. Kraus and Mr. Peduto agreed with Mr. Shields that no conflict of interest had occurred.

"My argument is this," said Mr. Kraus. "Every bill that comes before council, we have a personal interest in, because every one of us are employees of the city and every one of us are residents of the city."

"We had no private interest in this and there has been no disclosure issue," Mr. Peduto said. "So I find this opinion very suspicious. We were acting as members of City Council in the interests of the public.

"This is another instance where some members of council have chosen to represent the powerful rather than the people."

Mr. Dowd was the first to challenge the permit, but he said he will pay his legal bill from personal funds, and would not say how much he owed his lawyers.

When the other four members filed their challenge, Lamar filed a civil lawsuit suggesting that their actions could cost the firm $2 million. Legal wrangling ended, for now, when Lamar settled with Mr. Dowd and agreed to submit a new permit application that will go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments and the planning commission.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who initially supported the sign process but later ordered a stop to its construction, said he hadn't decided whether he would veto payment of the bill if it passes council.

Mr. Shields said if the four council members are guilty of a conflict of interest and forced to pay the legal bill themselves, "it means no [council member is] ever going to file a suit against a big company again because then they're going to have to pay out of their own pocket."