City Council — 2023-02-14

Rent Stabilization Ordinance

• The council directed staff to draft a first reading of a rent stabilization ordinance.
• Discussion focused on the urgency of tenant security versus potential unintended consequences for landlords.
• Legal counsel recommended including administrative appeal processes and enforcement mechanisms in the draft.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

• Allegations were made against the Mayor regarding the sharing of confidential information during litigation.
• The City Attorney clarified that disclosing attorney-client privilege information is not a criminal violation of the Brown Act.
• Public speakers cited concerns regarding council integrity and requested updated ethics protocols.

Council Workshop and Facilitator

• The council advanced plans for a priority-setting workshop with an external facilitator.
• Selection options included a local expert offering pro bono services versus a professional organization with a fee.
• The council agreed to schedule the local facilitator subject to a reassessment at the next meeting.

• In this Ojai City Council meeting, old issues come back and they come back in strange ways, particularly regarding rent stabilization, council ethics, and public engagement protocols. The session was characterized by high tension, procedural disputes, and a focus on balancing the need for action with the requirement for due diligence.

Rent Stabilization Ordinance

• Motion Passed: The council voted 4-1 (with one abstention) to direct staff to draft a first reading of a rent stabilization ordinance.
• Debate: Council members and the public debated the urgency of the ordinance. Supporters argued for moving fast to prevent evictions and provide tenant security. Opponents (notably Speaker_28/Rule) argued that the council needs more data and time to consider unintended consequences, such as landlords converting rental units to short-term rentals or selling homes to avoid the regulations.
• Legal Advice: Staff and legal counsel noted that the ordinance must include an administrative appeal process and enforcement mechanisms to avoid facial legal challenges. They discussed "Private Attorney General" clauses and the complexities of 30-day lease loopholes.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

• Accusations: A significant portion of the meeting involved public comment accusing Mayor Sticks of ethical violations. Accusers claimed she violated attorney-client privilege and the Brown Act by sharing confidential emails with opposing counsel (Simply Ojai/Sabrina Venskis) and recommending a defense attorney to the city during active litigation.
• Defense: Mayor Sticks denied that laws were broken and stated that the information was taken out of context. The City Attorney clarified that while attorney-client privilege is protected under the Evidence Code, disclosing it is not a criminal violation of the Brown Act.
• Public Sentiment: Several speakers expressed a deep lack of trust in the council's integrity, citing a need for an updated ethics code and protocols.

Council Workshop and Facilitator

• Agenda: The council moved forward with scheduling a priority-setting workshop.
• Facilitator Selection: They considered Jim Selman (offering to work for free) versus NUSA (fee of $4,000). While there was strong support for Selman's expertise, Council Member Rule requested to meet with him first to ensure objectivity given his local connections. The council agreed to proceed with scheduling him but allowed for a reassessment at the next meeting.

Meeting Logistics and Public Comment

• Schedule Change: Public comment was moved to the end of the meeting to allow more time for council business. This decision angered some attendees, who felt it suppressed free speech and caused them to leave before they could speak.
• Attendance: Several speakers noted that the late hour (over 11 PM) discouraged participation from those with health issues or families.

Conclusion

• The meeting concluded with a heavy agenda scheduled for February 28th, including valet parking and building code updates. The council acknowledged the need for a housing committee but prioritized the immediate drafting of the rent stabilization ordinance. Despite the vote to move forward, deep divisions regarding trust and transparency remain unresolved.