City Council — 2023-06-13

District Attorney Demand Letter Response

• Staff recommended adopting a commitment to future compliance to shield the city from litigation regarding past actions.
• Council members debated the propriety of signing an unconditional document without admitting to previous violations.
• A modified resolution was adopted to commit to future compliance while reciting the facts as the Council viewed them.

Recording Future Closed Sessions

• Public advocacy urged immediate audio recording of closed sessions to ensure honesty and prevent future disputes.
• Legal counsel advised against recording due to risks of subpoena, leaks, and prejudicing confidential negotiations.
• The Council deferred the decision and directed staff to investigate recording options or alternative transparency measures.

Meeting Summary: City Council Session on District Attorney Demand and Brown Act Compliance

• Date: June 13, 2023 (implied by June 14 deadline) Subject: Response to Ventura County District Attorney (DA) Cease and Desist Letter regarding Brown Act Violations

Overview

• The City Council convened to address a statutory deadline (June 14, 2023) to respond to a District Attorney demand letter alleging violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The allegations concerned the scope of closed sessions and the disclosure of confidential information during the City Council's first three meetings following the new board's installation. The core issue involved the city's response to a letter demanding an "unconditional commitment" to future compliance, which staff recommended adopting to shield the city from future litigation regarding past actions, even without admitting guilt. The meeting also featured significant debate regarding the recording of future closed sessions.

Staff Report and City Attorney Recommendations

• City Attorney Matt Summers and staff outlined the options available to the Council: 1. Adopt the Commitment as Drafted: This would prevent the DA from suing the city over the specific past actions cited. It is an "unconditional commitment" that does not constitute an admission of a violation. 2. Adopt with Modifications: Allow the city to modify the language while still meeting the statutory deadline. 3. Decline or Do Nothing: Risk potential litigation by the DA under Government Code Section 54960.2.

City Attorney Advice on Recording Closed Sessions

• Regarding the public demand to record closed sessions, the City Attorney advised against it. His reasoning included:
• Privilege and Prejudice: Recordings could be subpoenaed or leaked, potentially prejudicing the city’s position in ongoing or future litigation, real estate negotiations, or personnel matters.
• Chilling Effect: The presence of recording equipment may inhibit candid discussions in confidential settings intended for frank legal and strategic deliberation.
• Expert Consensus: He cited advice from Ann Revell (former Director of the Fair Political Practices Commission) and legal precedents suggesting recording is not necessary for compliance.
• Alternatives: He suggested "robust agenda descriptions" and detailed reporting out after the fact as better tools for transparency.

Public Comments

• Several members of the public addressed the Council, generally supporting the DA's request for an unconditional commitment but strongly urging the Council to record closed sessions for future accountability:
• Larry Steingold: Argued that recording would ensure honesty and prevent "veering off track." He criticized the City Attorney's legal defense of nursing homes and questioned why the Council was afraid to record.
• Bill Miley: Urged the Council to convince the DA they will operate within the law but insisted on audio recording and sharper closed session agendas. He questioned the City Attorney's competence regarding the hiring of outside counsel for the Becker Project.
• Dee Reed: Viewed the commitment as a "no-brainer" but urged recording and transcription for accountability and litigation protection, noting it encourages professional behavior.
• Jeffrey Starkweather (Ojai Valley Democratic Club): Supported the commitment and recording, suggesting recordings be made available to the DA or Grand Jury upon request to save litigation costs.
• John Drucker (Attorney for Leslie Ruhl): Argued that the DA was legally correct regarding the scope of the closed sessions. He noted the City Attorney created the flawed agenda items and held a conflict of interest. He urged integrity over "double speak."
• Robin Gerber: Challenged the Council's stance as hypocritical, urging them to admit mistakes and apologize to rebuild trust rather than relying on legal technicalities.

Council Deliberations

1. The Unconditional Commitment

• The Council debated the propriety of signing a document that acknowledges a demand letter without admitting fault.
• Council Member Whitman: Presented a lengthy defense arguing the closed sessions were lawful. He detailed that the sessions addressed the Simply Ojai v. City of Ojai litigation and the Becker Development Agreement. He argued the agenda items were prepared by the City Attorney, who determined the scope. He stated he could not sign a commitment admitting to something he believes never happened, particularly regarding the first three allegations (scope of closed sessions).
• Council Member Ruhl: Defended her disclosure of closed session information. She argued she disclosed the truth regarding a conflict of interest (a law firm recommended by an opposing party in a lawsuit) and that the DA would not have needed to investigate if there were a recording. She supported the commitment but felt the context was misrepresented.
• Council Member Lange: Defended the City Attorney, stating he is not a scapegoat, but expressed discomfort signing something she does not 100% agree with.
• Mayor Stix: Corrected the record regarding Council Member Ruhl's claims of friendship with opposing counsel and emphasized the need to follow the law to avoid lawsuits.

Resolution on Commitment

• To resolve the conflict, the City Attorney proposed a modified resolution. This resolution would:
• Be forward-looking (committing to future compliance) without admitting violations.
• Include "Whereas" clauses reciting the facts as the Council sees them (e.g., reliance on the City Attorney, litigation context).
• Separate the commitment into two parts: A general commitment for the City regarding the first three allegations, and a specific commitment for Council Member Ruhl regarding the fourth allegation (disclosure of confidential info).

Voting Outcome on Commitment

• Motion: Adopt the resolution with oral amendments as described by the City Attorney.
• Mover: Council Member Whitman.
• Seconder: Council Member Lange.
• Roll Call Vote:
• Mayor Stix: Yes
• Mayor Pro Tem Francina: Abstain
• Council Member Whitman: Yes
• Council Member Lange: Yes
• Council Member Ruhl: No
• Result: The motion passed 3-1 (with one abstention).

2. Recording Closed Sessions

• The Council then debated a motion to immediately begin recording closed sessions.
• Council Member Ruhl: Moved to record all closed sessions immediately, arguing it would prevent future "he said, she said" scenarios and build trust. She argued that without a record, the city remains in a "mess."
• City Attorney: Reiterated that recording creates a risk of records being used adversely against the city in court. He suggested that a "leak" is a legitimate risk and that confidentiality is preserved better without a recording.
• Council Member Whitman: Proposed a substitute motion to defer the decision. He suggested the City Attorney investigate options (including recording, written transcripts, or enhanced reporting) and bring recommendations back at a future date.
• Council Member Lange: Seconded Whitman's motion with a friendly amendment to include alternatives like minutes or transcripts.

Voting Outcome on Recording

• Motion: Substitute motion to defer consideration and have the City Attorney investigate options for recording or alternatives (e.g., transcripts) for a future report.
• Mover: Council Member Whitman.
• Seconder: Council Member Lange.
• Roll Call Vote:
• Mayor Stix: Yes
• Council Member Lange: Yes
• Council Member Ruhl: No
• Mayor Pro Tem Francina: Yes
• Council Member Whitman: Yes
• Result: The substitute motion passed 4-1. The original motion to record immediately was effectively defeated.

Adjournment

• Following the vote, Council Member Ruhl announced she felt unwell and left the chamber. The City Manager noted remaining agenda items would be re-noticed for the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned.