More change is necessary at City Hall.

The city of Hercules announced this week the appointment of an interim city manager, Charles Long, an outsider who helped Pinole in recent years through a troubling scenario not dissimilar to the issues currently facing Hercules.

Although City Manager Nelson Oliva is officially on medical leave for three months, the City Council has acknowledged a series of errors and mistakes in judgment over the course of Oliva’s at-times rocky tenure. The council’s appointment of an outsider is welcomed, but it is just the first step.

First off, what took so long? The company line out of City Hall for months was that nothing was wrong, and that in time, the whole story would be revealed and everything would prove to be aboveboard. That whole story never came.

For months, residents complained of apparent nepotism and a lack of accountability and openness at the podium during City Council meetings. There was no response from the city. Two scathing editorials were written by the Contra Costa Times, first last October and then in July, and there was still no response from the city, except a friendly suggestion to not believe what you read in the newspaper.

Even when a grand jury report was released, which outlined eight findings and five recommendations on the subjects of the city’s affordable housing department and lack of accountability and access to government, the city responded a month later with a churlish, spiteful letter. It didn’t seem to matter that the City agreed with seven of the eight findings and four of the five recommendations.

It wasn’t until the most recent editorial appeared in the Contra Costa Times—the one that called for voters to “take back control” and elect the two challengers running for City Council on Nov. 2—that the City reluctantly responded. And the council’s appointment of an interim city manager is certainly a step in the right direction.

Among other things, the interim city manager is tasked with conducting a complete review of the affordable housing program and every consultant contract, a full management audit, and implementing a program to improve communications between city government and the community.

One troubling fact remains however. One person was there every step of the way: the city attorney. If the City Council is finally admitting that some of the business it had conducted, and how the city had conducted its business, was wrong or misguided—in the wake of countless resident objections at the podium, three scathing editorials, and a grand jury investigation—how can the council retain the city attorney who had guided and counseled them along the way?

If what had taken place was indeed wrong—and kudos to the council for finally admitting this unsettling, inconvenient fact—how can the City Attorney, who had contended that all that had taken place was right (and who still has not admitted any fallacies in his judgment), be part of the transition forward?

City Attorney Mick Cabral’s advice and counsel was misguided. His defense of the city’s actions did nothing but amplify residents’ distrust of city government. And Cabral’s written response to the grand jury demonstrated hostility and contempt for open government laws.

A change in city manager was a positive first step. The replacement of the city attorney is the next logical one. It’s also necessary. It has to be done to heal the wounds. It has to be done for the city to regain the public’s trust.