UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.Scheduled start 6:00 PM · clock-time estimates pending review
0:00 – 0:027 turns
Call the order. We have a quorum. Oops, sorry Weston. Man on the move. Could we have the roll call please?
Roll call — called by Weston Montgomery
Show transcript
Thank you
Thank you, Weston and welcome everyone to the June 13th 2023 meeting of the Ojai City Council. James we please say the pledge for us.
Yes thank you mayor, please join me in standing right hand over your heart ready begin.
Thank you and good evening everyone. And just to clarify, I'm going to read this because Councilmember Rule is remote tonight so I need to. Good evening! The Brown Act authorizes members of the City Council to participate in meetings remotely under certain conditions. Assembly Bill 2449 permits council members to participate in City Council meetings remotely when they can demonstrate just cause or emergency circumstances, and when a quorum of the City Council is physically present in the city.
Council Member Rule is participating in tonight's meeting remotely under AB2449 and under the Just Cause exception given a medical situation. Council member rule will be participating in tonight's meeting using audio visual technology. Council members participating remotely under AB 2449 are required to disclose at the start of the meeting whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with a council member and the council members relationship with the individual. Councilmember rule would you please confirm that you are the only person 18 years or older in the room? You are teleconferencing from or else disclose those persons over 18 present with you. I
Yes, Mayor Stix, thank you. I am alone in this room. No other people over 18 are in here. Thank you.
Okay and we all hope you feel better. Thank you.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled — click to expand
And before we begin approval of the agenda, I just wanted to make a commitment—all of us to make a commitment—to civility respect peace and love We're all connected. We're all part of the same family, and I do go to a lot of government meetings and regional meetings, and there's a divisiveness as we know happening across the board, across our country, in our world, in our nation, you know? And it does trickle down, and this culture of contempt that I think we're all aware of which includes blame, judgment, hatred, lying, spreading misinformation, bullying is Pretty, there's a lot of it. So I think we in our community we can take the higher road and stop the finger pointing. And even though we may disagree on different opinions, we can still treat each other with respect kindness and peace.
And of course, we all know that we've been through a lot in the last several years. If you think about it, Me Too, Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ movement, COVID economic shakedown, the Thomas Fire floods, I don't mean to be too depressing, climate driven disasters and there's just a lot of change and uncertainty in our world right now. So I'm going to urge everyone to just come together.
Gandhi was right, be the change. Martin Luther King followed in his footsteps and Gandhi said if you want to change the world start with yourself so I know that we can do this we can be a beacon of civility connection and positive change And that doesn't mean we always have to agree. I would request that everyone stick to policy, not personality. Stop the personal attacks and let's focus on the rule of law and not individuals. So I appreciate your consideration and your civility And the other thing is if there is talking or we're having trouble hearing up here, I'm going to call you out individually and give you a warning. And then if it continues, we're going to ask you to leave because this is our business meeting. We have two a month and we need to get through some business.
Of course, we are so grateful that you are all here. It's an honor to serve and I'm grateful to everyone here for participating in democracy. It is messy though, and to quote Johnny Johnson quoting Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. So knowing that it's messy and it takes time, I appreciate all of you being here. And let's take care of some business. So on that note, we'll move on to approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve?
I'll move to approve. OK. Seconded.
And I'll second it. OK, roll call please, Weston.
Oh, but I heard somebody say here Okay,
all right all approved okay, yes motion passes Okay We will begin with a presentation the Ventura Transportation Commission or VCTC will give a presentation on the transit integration and efficiency studies or ties regarding public transportation Thank you for being here
Thank you. Good evening, I'm Claire Grasti. I'm the Director of Public Transit for the Ventura County Transportation Commission. Wonderful okay next slide well this is the transit integration and efficiency study also known as TISE thank you next slide So why study transit integration? So this was initiated by the commission in 2020 due to the pandemic's impact on transit, also which was underscored by issues of race and equity nationwide as well as the need for essential workers to still get to places of business.
Additionally even before that ridership had been falling nationwide for transit Since then, the challenges have only increased due to inflation, escalating costs, fewer contractor bids and increased congestion among others. Next slide please. Just some background, so a similar study was completed in 2012. Some changes that followed were the formation of Gold Coast Transit into a district which was previously a JPA as well as the formation of the East County Transit Alliance. This study began in 2021 and examined all operator data in Ventura County Held now more than six operator working groups, interviewed all commissioners, interviewed staff and city managers, collaborated with the since-completed coordinated plan and conducted focus group outreach.
Next slide please. So the question we're aiming to answer is can integration improve transit service and rider experience in Ventura County? Next slide please. So what are the issues? So there are nine different operators in Ventura County, so that can make it difficult to get around regionally when using public transit. There is a highly local focus on service delivery which can be a good thing But also can make it difficult to get around from agency to agency.
Additionally, there's some behind the scenes issues increase expensive less competitive contracts competition between agencies and changing local priorities next slide please There's a wide variation between these different operators in terms of policies, fares, programs and information available to the public. So this can be good for local communities but hamper the interoperability between the communities. Next slide please So this shows the approaches to integration we've looked at. Communication, coordination, collaboration and consolidation has been the most support for collaboration on the whole. Next slide please.
And next again. So some recommended actions and strategies that have come out of this plan is improving financial resilience by coordinating administrative functions, centralizing demand response call taking and scheduling, aligning rider policies, fares and eligibility, and standardizing marketing and surveying. Next slide please. So I'll go into the alternatives that came out of this study. Next slide please.
So the approach to these, we have three different alternatives that range from mostly collaborative partial consolidation and then full consolidation. Of course other variations are possible but these provide a framework for stakeholders to respond to and adapt moving forward. Next slide please. So alternative one, this is really the more collaborative approach. It does look at sub-regional consolidation of demand response and then increased coordination. So first fixed route service planning, procurements, standardizing policies and then again the marketing outreach aspect. Next slide please.
Alternative two would create a new demand response agency, and then it would also combine basically fixed route into two areas. So it's envisioned that Gold Coast Transit would take on Ojai Trolley Valley Express Service in the Santa Paul and Fillmore, the VCTC Intercity Bus Service. And then in the East County, Thousand Oaks, the Canaan Shuttle, Moore Park, Simi Valley and Camarillo would all combine into one agency. These three agencies would simplify how transit is run also would focus staff completely on transit at these agencies. We would continue, VCTC would be continued to remain as a regional transportation planning authority And we would transfer our operations to Gold Coast. Next slide, please.
So alternative three looks at consolidating all transit services into one agency. It's envisioned to be Gold Coast Transit as they are legislatively able to do so. So there wouldn't have to be but I think it'd be easiest if that were the case and the study assumes so for that reason. The board structure of Gold Coast would have to adjust to accommodate the new agencies that were joining.
And so all the bases that exist now would continue to exist because the county is so large, they would still be needed. And again we would remain as RTPA. Next slide please. So here's a little comparison. I know that chart is a little hard to see, but really Alternative 1 requires an action plan and a voluntary commitment to making progress. Alternative 2 balances that risk by relying on the existing partnerships, and Alternative 3 is the most ambitious with the greatest ability for change but also the most difficult to execute. Next slide please?
So alternative one has the least benefit cost ratio but also protects
Roll call — called by Weston Montgomery · 1 under review
Show transcript
0:12 – 0:179 turns
those streets and roads funds that are used in five of the cities now. Alternative two could potentially be more expensive if there was a completely new agency, and it would take longer to realize those cost benefits. And again, alternative three has the best potential for cost efficiency but it would lose those cities that use money for streets and roads would lose that. Next slide please.
So the ties really provides a roadmap for the future defines these issues and practical strategies to make progress provides a road map for how to do that and Alternative one codifies the actions are already mostly agreed upon among many of the agencies. Next slide, please so here are some concerns that we've heard next slide, please and So funding. Rightfully so, the operators want to ensure that any of these strategies result in cost efficiency and then of course those agencies using money for streets and roads have a concern related to that Those funds would go into transit, so there'd be a benefit for riders but obviously a hole in those city department budgets. And then just an uncertainty about the outcomes and how all of the finances will play out.
Related to responding to community needs. So the Ojai Trolley for example is a great local service. We also see those in Moorpark with the micro-transit service that they have both Camarillo and Valley Express Next slide, please. So along the same lines, no one wants any less service than they have right now. So we heard from every stakeholder we have a sentiment of do no harm. We don't want any reduction in service. This does not recommend any sort of service modifications along those lines. The resulting agency would have to conduct a study but it's envisioned that the cities even if service were changed they'd have roughly the same amount of hours as service.
Next slide please. So the next steps are we're soliciting public input, presenting to the agencies as we were doing tonight. We will also be conducting a short-range transit plan which will include the strategies that are outlined as part of the ties. In the future, we'll be continuing to collaborate with represented groups trying to implement low hanging fruit options that already agreed upon and then working with stakeholders on creating some working groups related to finance and operations.
and legal counsel as well. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Thank you Claire. Susan?
So Claire, I'm the city liaison to the Ventura County Transportation Commission and i love the meetings they're very exciting. Made a lot of progress in the twenty five years since i went to my first meeting and your great program that i think we need in Ojai is the free students ride free so that you train young people about the convenience of public transportation We all know this, here's the great truth. Public transportation is only going to be successful unless it has to be as convenient and comfortable as the car but already the great advantage is no parking. You don't have to worry about parking and that's like one of our great problems in Ojai and everywhere is where to park all these cars. That's my two cents I
applaud your work thank you Thank you, thank you. And I'm happy to say that the college ride and youth ride free programs will be continuing next year so we're very excited about that. They are wildly successful right? They are yes especially youth ride in the Gold Coast area in particular yeah it's been great.
Thank you so much, Claire. Really appreciate your efforts and go public transportation. Thank you, thank you, thank you so much. Okay,
thank
you
have a
great night. All right, thank you we will move on to public communication and just a reminder these are items not on the agenda and because they're not on the agenda we cannot discuss them. We appreciate your viewpoint and participation and we can agendize them in the future Public comments are three minutes, and at the end of the three minutes you'll hear a chime as a reminder when your time is up. Please respect each other's time and in the spirit of equity stop talking when the chime sounds. No giving away time to another speaker. And if you're in agreement with a previous person please just say ditto.
So we will begin with Ron from the library. Ron, are you here? Yay! And then we have Liana McNerney, I think. Sorry. And then Bradley Smith.
0:17 – 0:2511 turns
All right. Thank you so much members of council. My name is Ron Solorzano. I am the regional librarian for the Ojai Valley and tonight I just wanted to give you the update on some of what we have going on at the Ojai Library. So we've got two special events coming up this month. First on Wednesday, June 21st Natasha Saxena with the Ventura FireSafe Council is going to visit the library at 5 p.m. to deliver a wildfire ready workshop to spread the word about no-cost home wildfire assessments available through the council Then the following week, Friday June 30th, Deputy District Attorney Melissa McMurdo and Senior Victim Advocate Kelly Tindall will visit the library at 2pm to deliver a workshop titled The Intersection of Disability and Domestic Abuse.
Both of these events are free and open to the public. I also want to tell you all that this year's Summer Reading Challenge continues with special weekly programming for kids starting on June 20th. These programs are going to include Perler Crafting on Monday afternoons, Maker Labs on Tuesdays, our regular Storytimes on Wednesday mornings, Lego Playtime on Thursdays and Teen Sewing Workshops on Sundays.
We'll conclude our summer festivities with a special rocket launch activity on Thursday, August 3rd and an end of summer party with Kona Ice on Friday, August 4th. For exact times and details please contact the library. Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the Ventura County Library's Adult Literacy Program which is headed up by our education literacy and outreach librarian Antonio Apodaca.
Literacy programs can help change someone's life according to estimates released in 2020 by the National Center for Education Statistics one out of four Californians have difficulty using or comprehending print materials Students who struggle with reading are four times more likely to drop out of high school, and the correlation between illiteracy and incarceration is strong.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reports that more than half of adult inmates are functionally illiterate. The library helps people of all ages improve English fluency and reading and writing skills so they may achieve their goals and aspirations. For adults, the library aims to offer free one-on-one tutoring and conversational English groups to help others achieve personal goals such as learning the alphabet, getting a job, sharing a book with a child, reading a medicine label and voting.
We are in need of volunteer tutors looking to give back to their community. Please contact the library's adult literacy team directly with any feedback or questions. You can reach them by email at readventura.org, or by phone at 805-677-7160. That's all that I have for this evening. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much. Go reading!
May I? Mayor? Did you say that one out of four adults have a problem with illiteracy?
Yeah, that's from the National Center for Education and Statistics. One out of four Californians has difficulty using or comprehending print materials.
That's startling! And then the connection with incarceration gives us pause. Thank you.
Thanks, Ron next we have Liana you're gonna have to help me. I'm sorry.
I can't
Leanna McNealy nearly okay, then we have Bradley Smith and then Colin Jones
Okay Weston has some folders for everyone at the break We'd like to thank City Council for hearing our comments my husband and I are in front of you again to address a The irreparable and long-term damage to our property value, intrusion into our private space and ongoing noise. And nuisance issues which will be created by the unfortunate and unnecessary proposed placement of the EV charging station on the border of our property.
At the March 28th meeting, Mr. Vega graciously paused the project to allow us to find a solution. In the ensuing months we've had three meetings with Mr. Siebert scheduled at his pleasure and spaced at least a month apart effectively slow walking the process. We're now being pressured to bring the process to an end We fear the inadequate mitigations proposed by Mr. Siebert, shrubs, signage and a new wooden fence will be forced upon us as a solution. Mr. Siebert has acknowledged there is a problem with headlights and noise. He's stated that he would hesitate to buy a property with a raft of charging stations next to it. He also commented that when additional charging stations are inevitably needed, the logical site will be next to the proposed ones on the boundary with our home, amplifying the issues noted previously.
The solution we have proposed and have offered to pay for is to move the stations to a more appropriate location where there would be minimum impact to any residents and no impacts to a 250-year old already stressed oak tree. We found out only this afternoon that the quote we were basing our decision on does not actually exist. The numbers given to us previously are a rough estimate, leaving us no firm basis on which to move forward. We also seek clarification on why a construction project that was to be handled by Public Works were we to pay for it would now have to be outsourced to a private contractor.
For more than a week Mr. Siebert studiously ignored repeated written requests for documentation pertaining to the grant A series of written correspondence is provided for you in the folders. You will see that only today did he acknowledge that request and respond with a process for obtaining that information. We are here to ask Council to consider the following, suspend the forward marching of the project and consider our requests and agendize it to move these charging stations.
We would like that we and other residents of Ojai be notified when the city is considering projects affecting their properties. The operating premise that every citizen must pay minute attention to council meetings and lengthy reports do not provide for the stated goals of a strong customer's culture, and finally, we'd like to have a copy of the arborist report outlining what steps would be taken to mitigate the damage inflicted to the oak tree Thank you. Thank you, Leon.
One quick... When and if the council considers our request for review we hope you keep in mind that this property is not a parcel on a map. It's our home where we've lived for 38 years. Thank you.
Mayor that's not on the agenda tonight. So the council can't give any direction on that tonight I'm There there's a lot to that and I don't think I hire the council can get into the minutiae of it but in short, I think there's ongoing conversation with the Community Development Department and I I'm planning to proceed with that conversation so
Thank you, James.
0:25 – 0:359 turns
I would like to come because it's in my district. Could I? I'd like to attend one of the meetings
We're talking about a property our project on City Hall property I'll have to put some thought into it. My initial instinct is this is a staff matter but
Next we have Bradley Smith then Colin Jones, then Larry Steingold. Oh No, I'm sorry Then Andy Gilman
Council members mr. Vega my name is Bradley Smith Leanna McNeely is my wife and The initial approval by City Council to put in these EV stations included a photo that was unrecognizable as part of our house and was buried in a report back in September of last year. What I have for you in front of you is what it boils down to. Photograph one shows a picture of where the proposed EV charging station would be. If you look in the very center of that photo, you'll see a gray pipe sticking up Beyond that is my house.
You see a living room, a bathroom, a laundry room and a bedroom. When people come to use the charging stations they have their headlights on and we're going to see headlights and taillights Constantly not to mention the noise that is created By the people just last week isn't as an aside There was a woman who I heard her name her address her telephone number her social security number and a medication She was taking in trying to speak with her doctor while she was waiting for a car to be charged And it wasn't until I went over to my fence looked over and just kind of looked at her She saw me and realized what was happening Photograph number two is where we would like to see the EV station relocated to, not adjacent to our home.
You can see on the left-hand side where the existing chargers are. The city beyond headlights, taillights would be directed towards where they are currently directed towards. They would be towards the city generator building, the sheriff's trailer and why not have the two spaces that they want here? Page 3 is the permit, page 7 of the permit giving the city permission itself to put in the charging station.
As you can see I have made some edits to this and you can see again where the proposed charger is where the living room bathroom laundry bedroom are Below that where the covered parking is, where it seems reasonable to put these. And it's not but a short point-to-point to run the line which I've indicated with a dotted line because we all know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line rather than winding it around as they've done already. It doesn't make sense for where it's going now. It would make more sense to be moved and I don't think that City Council appreciated this when they approved it Don't think anybody saw it you couldn't tell from the photo that's in that package if you go back and look at it That was actually a house there.
All you could see was the bottom part of this 250 year old tree It's There's going to be more stations there They would be under the tree as you see on page one
Thank You Bradley, thank you Next we have Colin Jones then Andrew Gilman and then Shalom Joshua
Colin Jones, East End. I have a little poem for you. It's called City Council. Three on this council of five are eating Ojai alive. It seems Councillor Whitman has become Betsy's hit man. He thinks Susan's concerns are farce. He says you're talking out of your... 11 years she has spent here in councillors vent Now let's all rejoice, Sousa's last found her voice.
She takes the mayor to task because she sees through her mask For the council, this cannot stand. They must get Sousa canned. What excuse can they use? What loophole can they abuse? Her voice they'll restrict shouting she doesn't live in her district. Susan, they're willing to sacrifice for their fool's paradise. She's a councillor who cares about the future we share.
We do not always agree on the future we see But I trust in her love of our town, her integrity abounds. If it is for honesty you pray then Sousa must stay." And what if James Vega no longer a player? Who can blame him for leaving there'll be no more appeasing he may give a shiver when he puts Ojai in his mirror They're incensed by Leslie Rule. She sees through these fools.
She shows no charity for their lack of veracity. If she proves too hard to handle, she too may be cancelled. In this corrupt city play they will sue her away. Councillor Lange seems confused in which faction to choose. She may have a question to ask but she's afraid Whitman will attack and let us be fair and assume that she cares, but then why is she silenced by a glance from Her Highness?
These three cannot be absolved now the DA is involved. He wants closed meetings recorded so the Brown Act can't be thwarted. They've brought shame on our town and they have let us all down. To solve the problems we share, we need leaders who care. Who will put Ojai's future first and simply Ojai in reverse. Backed active committee threatens to sue our fair city They won't back down, I'm afraid. They've all drank the Kool-Aid.
It must be a very scary thing to be on the wrong side of everything. To get back to Ojai on course we will need a divorce. To get out of this fix, recall Whitman and Sticks.
Thank you, Colin. I'm gonna ask the audience please no clapping, booing. We're gonna have silence, thank you. Next we have Andrew Gilman then Shalom Joshua and then Jeffrey Starkweather.
I'm not going to be nearly as artistic as Colin. I'm Andy Gilman, I live in Ojai and I'm the director of the Agora Foundation and I want to say first, I want to express my gratitude for you because you're paid very little and I am sure you get a ton of grief and I get that so I know this is essentially a volunteer opportunity and I thank you for that. Agora is producing videos, you know that. We're in the works of more and I hope to reach out to every single one of you to have an opportunity for you to talk about what you would like to talk about in addition to panels in the fall on some public issues and I hope that you will all be interested in coming to our free Hitchcock movie night which will be at the Ojai Brewery & Winery starting Monday the 26th so all of us just coming together watching a great movie and hanging out I want to share my opinion with you, and I speak only when I feel completely compelled.
The May 22nd Transparency Workshop was a missed opportunity in my view of building trust in the community which I think is in deep demise and what I noticed there was defensiveness seeking affirmation from the city attorney instead of what I view as a main goal How to get half of our community trusting this body again. I don't think it's just a few vocal people, I think it is half the community and so I thought that was a missed opportunity.
I think that the motions on today's agenda further move away from compromise and cooperation. Justifications of representation within districts don't make sense when I think most And our vote was, the district voting should be changed when feasible. That's not something that we should check on and look at. And I think that with the commissions especially it's a built-in expression of something like a neutral voice.
And so if council people get to choose commissioners and that there are three additional commissioners there gets to be a super majority essentially. So in that sense you're not going to get a neutral fair voice. You're going to get your voice And if there is a majority here, there'll be a majority there. So I think it is a missed opportunity that we're seeing around the country where state legislatures are deciding instead of an election commission, we're going to have our state legislature decide on voting.
So in a sense, it's speaking back to the majority instead of hearing from other voices and I think it is a missed opportunity. Every vote that you take and everything you do and say, ask yourself in my building citywide valley wide greater trust or am I diminishing it. I think that's where we are. And I would like to bring back if I could the first Mondays of the month we used to have a brown bag lunch meeting and Libbey Park. And it was council people, staff, casitas, OUSD. The paper put it on. If anybody wants to do that, Agora can do it. I think it would be a great opportunity to bring that back. Thank you.
Thank you Andy. Next we have Shalom Joshua then Jeffrey Starkweather then Carl Hindman.
0:35 – 0:4211 turns
OK
hello.
Good evening, I'm Shalom Joshua. I live in the city of Ojai. I'm going to do a little wardrobe addition to begin with. I want to thank James Vega for the wonderful work he has done as City Manager. From day one you have been a class act. It is an important job to this community and it has been filled with poise, intelligence, kindness, awareness. A sense of proportion that I hope will ring through the ethers of this community for a long time to come.
I give you a tip of the hat Thank you for your service.
Thank you, Shalom. Next we have Jeffrey Starkweather then Carl Heinemann then Lee Heinemann.
Mayor, city council member and our wonderful James Vega who we're gonna miss and our residents. The argument made at a recent city council meeting that non-residents should have less of a voice in the city because they do not pay property taxes ignores the fact that property taxes and sales tax paid by residents in my calculation accounts for less than 20% of our revenues.
Sales tax is paid by people in the unincorporated areas, 23,000 of them compared to 7,000 in a city. It's probably even greater and many if not most of our businesses are owned by people that live outside the city. I believe that the preference for city residents is a limiting myopic and parochial approach to dealing with Valley Residents who volunteer endless hours to support our city, businesses and non-profits. Ojai does not have a police, fire, sanitation, housing, social service and water departments. The City relies on the resources of the entire valley and region to provide the government services city residents rely on. Creating a governing wall around the city limits our opportunity and access to wider resources. We have a choice We can have a city council that is exclusive, parochial, inward-focused, unwelcoming to new residents and newcomers and trying to keep everything the way it was in the past.
Or we can have a city council that is expansive, inclusive, welcoming to outsiders and newcomer, cosmopolitan and wanting to move our city into the 21st century while preserving our unique small town character We need city leaders that understand that the city and its residents cannot accomplish great things without involving all the residents of the valley, and leveraging the resources of citizens, special districts, county, and other government business and non-profit organizations that operate across city municipal boundaries.
I'm done with that. I wanted to let everyone know we had the Ojai Valley Democratic Club combined with the housing committee of the planning commission, we had a forum that Rachel and Sousa attended, Sousa spoke And if you didn't get a chance to go to it, you can go on the Ojai Valley Democratic Facebook page and you can see a link and watch it. We're hoping to have another one probably in July and some of us are taking a trip to one of the participants dignity moves to Santa Barbara on Thursday to see their very interesting transient homeless housing project. Thank You
Thank you Jeffrey. Next we have Carl Heineman, then Lee Heineman and then John Drucker
I'm going to talk a little bit about, I guess it's old news but this lawsuit, I'm still not clear on what's going on. It's a private entity suing the city and someone has told me that they're going to recover litigation costs maybe from the defendant, maybe from the back room. I don't know how that works. $29,900 seems like a lot of money to me. My wife worked as a teacher's aide at one of the local schools. You could definitely hire a teacher's aide for 29,000 to help. She helped with the disadvantaged and autistic kids. That'd be a good use of the money.
We could also fix the potholes. We could also provide rental assistance for a 47-year resident that's having trouble finding I talked to her on the phone. I said, what can we do to help? And she says, you know financially, we really shouldn't talk about that. We have plenty of people in the audience who would help our local residents. We'd be happy to help anybody.
Financially, if we can't use the city council, I understand that but we're here to help and that's the way Ojai works. I'd like to also dispel some of the stuff that I'm hearing on social media. And I am definitely confused because when I spoke three weeks ago, the guy who preceded me, a guy by the name of John took on one of our council members and asked her to resign so I got an email from somebody that said this was The boyfriend of the mayor?
Even stranger, again I would like to dispel some of these rumors because this is what you hear on the internet and it's what I hear on emails. I heard that the wife of one of the council members had leaked or had somehow been involved in this grand jury investigation. I'm not sure what that means. I said I'd dispel that. That's not the way we work in Ojai. There's also a conspiracy theory that I'm hearing about some group called Simply Ojai and I went to their web page. They seem fine They seem like they're they want to do some good here, and I didn't see the mayor's name mentioned on that webpage Somebody said there's a fellow by the name of Tom Francis That's on that page and somebody also told me or I think I read it on the internet that he might have been the The campaign manager for the mayor but again what I'm here to dispel any of these rumors Thank you very much
Thank you, Carl.
I think you said I was 47 years old.
No remember for 47 years you lived here.
Oh, I've lived here 67 years
0:42 – 0:485 turns
Next we have thank you Carl next we have Lee Hindman then John Drucker and then Leonard Cleif
I'm Lee Hindman council members staff and mayor and City Attorney, this is sort of to you but everybody. I'm asking do not support any action to remove Mayor Pro Tem Sousa Francina from District 4 of the city council? She is the single most long standing member of this council and holds the only overarching view of council activities and actions over time. The remainder of the council needs the benefit of her historical viewpoints and experience, also removing her would send a negative message to the community regarding how Ojai City Council treats a person when a lack of affording housing is available That's not Ojai. The council has already generated, unfortunately in many cases a negative impact on our community this year and it's costing the city dearly in time and money Another negative impact of removing Sousa Franklin would be caused, or it would cause an impression that there's something politically driven behind this action.
Maybe not. There's a lot of people saying that Mr. Whitman, You initiated this. I'm not saying that the rumors are out there, so I'm just saying please confirm or dispel this. The negative press and impressions are so damaging to our council. We just ask for transparency. We asked for your decency in this matter and remember we are a family here where the Ojai Please put on your humanitarian hats. Thank you.
Thank you, Lee. Next we have John Drucker and then Lenny Klaif.
Good evening, everyone. I'd like to comment on an unpleasant incident in the last council meeting. We were considering a valet parking ban when minutes earlier Tom Francis, the mayor's campaign manager, speechwriter and closest advisor had used his allotted three minutes of comments but after I argued that such a ban was anti-environment ageist and ableist he wanted to speak again Members of the public never received that privilege.
So when Francis approached this lectern and stood here, I gestured palms up to call attention to this disregard for procedure but no one seemed to notice so I said excuse me? Mayor Sticks then suggested that he be allowed to clarify himself. I then uttered, oh God under my breath. The mayor called for order and moved to a vote to allow him to speak. During the lull Francis left the lectern walked over to me seated over there loomed threateningly over me got in my face and sternly warned me I don't appreciate you showing that kind of disrespect to me Bystanders said they thought Frances was going to hit me.
The police chief, alertly seeing that the incident could escalate, ushered Frances away for which I thank her. The mayor and her allies then voted to allow Frances to speak. A minute in he said quote, I'm sorry, I am really emotional so my voice is messed up but just let me try to relax That'd be scary enough. But knowing that Francis has a string of arrests, some violence related and a criminal conviction for resisting arrest made this incident very alarming to me.
What else is he capable of? And how does a man like this get so close to the mayor? He certainly doesn't manifest the kindness, humility, civility, honesty and collaboration that the mayor talks endlessly about It all points to the hollowness of the mayor's words. Only minutes earlier, she declared she can be impartial and love her friends. Really? She cuts everyone else off at three minutes sharp, but when her beloved friend speaks out of turn or she needs to share privileged emails with them no problem. It's also okay for the mayor to collude with simply Ojai's lawyer friend who's suing the city to advise Ojai costing taxpayers an extra close to $30,000.
None of that by the way was ever addressed in the so-called transparency workshop. Friends of Betsy menace the city with litigation while their closest confidant Tom Francis is a garden variety old school menace. And what are you going to do about it?
Thank you, John. Next we have Lenny Klaif.
0:48 – 1:0145 turns
I'm glad I got to speak after the last speaker, because that was a metaphor for the problem. I see here in the city of Ojai. I've been living here for more than 30 years. I've been as active as anyone in the community pretty much. I don't know how many hundreds of city council meetings, commission meetings, public meetings I've attended. I've disagreed with speakers, I've disagreed with council people, sometimes they vote in favor of the projects I like, sometimes they vote against them. I have never called anybody a name here, I have never disrespected anyone and I am embarrassed by your conduct not individually... Collectively, individually and collectively There's some kind of feud, I mean the last gentleman who spoke my understanding, I could be wrong but my understanding is he represents one of the council people.
So there's some kind of massive ugliness permeating this council and you should know that the entire city a good portion of this city is sick and tired of it and embarrassed by it And I've been thinking of saying something about it for a while, and for whatever reason didn't. And what the impetus for my speaking was Mr. Vega's resignation. And I second the comments of Shlom.
I very rarely hear anyone more articulate than I up here. He was so bless you. How are we going to find a replacement? If anybody who is thinking about being city manager watches a council meeting, it's goodbye. Seriously we are in big trouble and it's your collective fault, your collective responsibility Madam Mayor, you made a lovely statement at the beginning about being respectful to each other and you addressed it to the audience. And it applies to the audience but it more so applies to you because you set the tone here and if you all scream at each other and scream at the city attorney and scream at the city manager why are we supposed to behave Calmly and rationally you set the tone and the tone is horrifying Please figure it out or I you know, I mean, I don't know what we're gonna do here without a city manager But nobody's gonna want that job.
Thank you
Thank You Lenny Weston any comments online
No mayor no raised hands.
Okay.
Thank you. Excuse
me
After that, we have one raised hand mayor
I'm afraid I have a question about the legality of the public notification for tonight's public hearing. So, I want to get it out now before we go down the road to promising to obey the Brown Act and be transparent and all that and then embarrass ourselves by having a public hearing that may not have been adequately noticed. Maybe the city attorney will tell me I'm wrong but let me just explain what I'm talking about. On June 2nd there was a quarter page ad in the Ojai Valley News The public hearing and it talked to describe the fact that there would be a proposed ordinance concerning how commissioners planning commissioners are appointed. And it said you can get materials at City Hall. The materials were not available until the following Thursday, that's not my concern.
My concern is when I got the materials they were with the public agenda and I opened it up and there's a public hearing concerning four commissions. You are going to propose ordinances I think for two of the commissions and modify ordinances for two others all of them will concern what you'll talk about at that agenda item But they were not adequately notified. I don't think city attorney, maybe you can tell me if i'm wrong but I did not see a notification for tonight's public hearing anywhere except in the agenda so I am proposing that it's I think it's okay to go on with the discussion about the planning commission um it described it uh you know this stuff was in the agenda package But the people who are on those other commissions and the public do not know what you were going to do tonight.
Or if they do, they found out on Friday when they looked at the agenda. So I would propose postponing the discussion of those three commissions because it will be embarrassing if I'm right that after you've promised, I hope, to follow the Brown Act and all that and be more transparent and more kind We would have a public hearing that wasn't adequately notified. I assume it was an accident. Perhaps you can, can we just take a minute to find out? That would be great. Thank you. Mayor
and Council, I'm happy to answer questions if you'd like. So the state law requires a notice for the planning commission because it's part of the zoning code. The other commissions do not require public hearing notice, it sounds like the public hearing notice that was provided just mentioned the planning commission although I don't have it right in front of me but I trust the commenter. It sounds like-
That's correct,
it did mention- The notice just described the planning commission so the council could defer consideration to the arts commission. I would note that the ordinance regarding historic preservation commission and the parks and rec commission is on the agenda for adoption. The public hearing was held for that one last time, but all of the above is up to the council if the council wants to consider it further.
No special notice was provided to the commissions themselves and that also would be an option to give a special notice to every sitting commissioner if that were the council's desire and I'd suggest that consider that and make the decision you can make it now or you can make it when the item comes out
Councilmember Lange.
Yes, well I was gonna bring this up when we talk about the agenda item but several commissioners with whom I spoke did not were not aware that we were talking about this and so So I do I do think that giving Commission members more time would be I mean, I think we could still discuss it but I do want them all to have a chance to To say something To at least have their voices be heard. Thank you that
would seem like a right step for me I appreciate that sir, thank you.
Thank you Mary council one option to that to the point by councillor Lang would be to provide specific notice to the individual commissioners That's always a choice
Thank You Matt One comment online
we have two now mayor First we have Becky followed by Sue Williamson
Okay, and there's been a request for Becky's last name Becky
Yes.
Becky, you have
the floor? She can answer that. She doesn't have to. The Brown Act does allow anonymous comments. So we can ask and she can answer if she does or doesn't want to.
Glad I didn't say it. But yeah, you're OK to ask. Thank you.
Becky, you have the floor.
OK, thank you. I just have a question. I actually have a comment I might want to be making later in the evening on an agenda item. But what I'm wondering is, is I'm noticing that several people are commenting on Mayor Pro Tem Francina's housing situation in the public comments. And I was of the idea that, and maybe I have it wrong, that there would be public comment about that later because it's an agendized item. So I'm just wondering should I be planning to give my comment now or should I wait until the agenda item comes up in the meeting?
Thank you, Becky. Will you wait until item number two? And yes, public comment is for items not on the agenda and a few of the speakers veered into item number two. So if we could save that... Can you save your comment for item number two?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
May I make a comment? Rebecca Windenwood People have asked who is Becky because you speak at every meeting and we do not have the capacity A lot of people don't know you in there while you don't have to give your name Many of us do know you, but there are many people who watch these meetings every week and they keep wondering who is that speaker. That's why it was requested that you give your first and last name. And the people that speak in person, they fill out a speaker card so we know who they are.
We have the names I think of everyone else except for you. I just want to explain that. Thank you.
And just to clarify, it's the speaker's choice correct?
Right. People can speak anonymously or some put John Smith or John Doe or Jane Doe. We can ask and then they can choose to provide or not provide information
Are you saying they can even provide a false name?
Absolutely. The Brown Act allows false names, it allows anonymous comment. You can put speaker number one.
Okay.
The Brown Act allows that. Now it's harder to be anonymous if you're in person but there are cases and other more complex places where people will show up in a mask and not a COVID mask like a full mask so the Brown Act allows people to comment however they want to comment.
Yeah let's not get any ideas okay? Right now. Okay one more one more comment.
Yes and from the clerk seat I read it as it is on Zoom Next we have Sue Williamson. Sue Williamson, you have the floor? I
really wasn't going to comment about this, but after listening to these public comments, I'm feeling that this whole thing has gotten so out of control in terms of not just the city council people. The way I see it is everybody has made mistakes. There have been mistakes made on both sides of this issue. What's happened is it's roused up everybody in the community, or not everybody. But there's certainly a lot of people that have exacerbated the whole thing and the request that people not make statements against personalities and this fellow reading poem attacking each individual person.
There's just no respect going any which way And to try to blame each other is not the way to conduct ourselves, either as a city council or as citizens. And I just think that there's a lot of citizens that are acting pretty outrageously as well and feeding into this crazy situation. start to have a little bit of understanding and compassion that people make mistakes, and it goes all around for everybody. And rather making a federal case out of it can we just try to have a little bit more humanity towards each other and more kindness?
Betsy has asked for this and I think she's conducted herself very well considering the kinds of personal attacks that have been going on. So, I would just ask that people take a deep breath and try to relax a little bit and see that there are mistakes, that we're all human, that we all make mistakes. Thank you.
That's all Mayor.
Okay thank you. Thank You Sue. All right we will move on to the consent oh Oh, and this is general public comment? Okay. We okay? Yep.
Thank you. I oppose directing the city attorney to take any action to support removal of Mayor Pro Tem Sousa Francine.
Hawk, I'm sorry this is if you want to speak on item number two Well a couple people veered into this but do you mind waiting and you can fill out a card and Hear all the people who are here to talk on that issue
great And is that next or is
that yes? Yes very soon. Okay Thank You Okay. Consent calendar, is there a motion to approve? Go
ahead. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Thank
you. We do have one public comment. Should we do that first before the roll call? Larry Steingold on IG, consent number IG. No, 1G. Sorry, Larry.
1:01 – 1:0615 turns
Do we have to formally pull it?
Just take the comment, yeah. Larry Steingold, city resident, taxpayer, voter. 1G is the police? Yes. Congratulations you're doing a great job and I take my hat off to you wish I had one. My question regarding G is the $56,000 that is being paid to them in addition to the three and a half million dollars that we already give the Police Department? We already pay them $3.5 million, or whatever the number is, for lots of services, for all the infrastructure, for chip and everything—great mustache—and all these things are wonderful and they do a great job.
And safety is why we're all here because that's what makes Ojai really Ojai. It's safe. And we all know that and that's how we want to keep it. But why are we giving them $56,000 when we already give them three and a half million for another position that they already should be providing for? A public tech—a civilian police technician to interact with the police and the public. Isn't that what they're supposed to be doing for their three-and-a-half million dollars?
That's my question. Why are we giving him another 56 Gs? Use it for the other 46, add it for bicycle safety, add it for something else but not for another position. For something they're already supposed to be providing for. It's $56,000 just what? Give it, use it for a lawsuit I don't care we shouldn't be hiring somebody to do something for which they're already supposed to be providing us for and that you're supposed to negotiate for like cops on a weekend why are we living on a grant for cops on a weekend. Why isn't that part of the deal?
I mean, we get 25,000 people every weekend and we have to get a grant to provide cops? Shouldn't that be provided? Whereas during the week we only have what, eight? Okay, we need two on foot on the weekends who are here and knowing all the owners of the stores they're walking beat cops just like back east in the cities where they used to have. Where the cops go in the stores and they know everybody, and they know everybody on the street. But don't give them 50... Don't spend the $56,000 for this.
Thank you Larry.
Can I just
briefly
respond? Sure. Go
ahead
James. We've talked for hours and hours and had public meetings about police
services... Hold on one second. I'm gonna ask everyone to please come to silence so we can hear. Thank you.
We've done... We've had whole meetings on police services and...
Larry! We're responding to you!
So we've had public meetings and different things talking about our police services, so we can't get into a full analysis of it here. But at a very simple level, the $3 1⁄2 million provides our basic police services, and we as a city have purchased the lowest amount of police services available because we're such a small city, and the sheriff's level of service that's their minimum is higher than our small city would otherwise have.
But this grant in particular Is to $100,000 that the city can use for targeted enforcement. And so we're supposed to pick some priority things that we want to provide. We can't use the hundred thousand dollars to pay our three and a half million dollar bill. We can't use it to pay for our normal police services. And so in meeting with the police chief, the two things that we don't have currently that we recommended was having a civilian position who will work with the public at the police station to provide better service. And then also like Larry mentioned, some directed enforcement which includes the foot patrols that we started to do. Those are above and beyond and I understand Larry's point of well we have officers why aren't they doing that?
Well because our normal officers are on their normal patrols and these are additional officers And then, as mentioned in the staff report at the last council meeting that we brought this, the council had asked if there was any funding that could be used to address homeless-related issues. We have met with the Sheriff's Department. We've met with the police chief and our assistant sheriff, our former Chief Rivera. And they are working on some homeless liaison officers, and this would allow us to utilize those officers as well. Which again are not in our basic level of service.
So I understand all the points but we do recommend accepting this grant and using it for these things.
Thank you James. Okay that's it? No more
comments?
No comments. Okay alright roll call for the consent calendar
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 motion and a second. Council Member Whitman roll call. · 1 under review
Show transcript
1:06 – 1:2523 turns
Motion passes
Thank you, all right
we will move on to item discussion item number two response to Ventura County civil grand jury report titled addressing district-based representation for the OI City Council James we have a staff report
yes thank you On May 15th, 2023 the city received a report from the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury titled Addressing District-Based Representation for the Ojai City Council. The report stated that one Ojai City Council member is no longer residing within the district from which they were elected And provides recommendations from the grand jury to address the issue that they have identified with the requirement that the city respond to the report and recommendations in writing to the grand jury within 90 days, which is on or about August 12th 2023.
The grand jury report does not identify the council member that they are alluding to, but I think we have figured it out. It appears that they are referring to Mayor Pro Tem Francina who has discussed her challenges to find housing in her district. The grand jury report is included in the packet for anybody interested in reading that. The grand jury report is several pages, but ultimately their recommendation is that if the quote non-compliant council member end unquote remain in office. The Ojai City Council should direct the city attorney to submit a Quo Vorento application to the Attorney General to seek to file suit to determine if the council member has the legal right to hold the public office that the council member occupies.
I wanted to make a couple points from the city. As noted in the grand jury report and in the draft responses that we prepared as a starting point for the council, the city has not historically had a role in re-verifying council members' residences after an election. And the city does not have a mechanism to remove a council member for any alleged violations of any requirements. Those just aren't things that we have done or have the power.
More regarding the option of removing council members, we didn't have even the power to do that if desired. The grand jury report states that the seat is vacant and finds that the city should appoint a replacement or proceed to cororento, which is a process to ask the Attorney General to decide. But again, the city doesn't have the power to simply declare the seat vacant.
And because the city does not have the power to declare the seat vacant for example, The draft responses that the staff have prepared to the grand jury Essentially are saying if the grand jury is telling us that the attorney that this is a problem and the attorney general needs to decide our responses essentially say The option is to consider whether to ask the Attorney General to decide.
And so, several of the responses are drafted that way. Staff recommends that the City Council review the draft responses and take public input and provide direction regarding whether those responses are appropriate or whether the responses should be modified. And in the third recommendation in the staff report, also because if the response is that the city is going to submit them to the Attorney General then we would also need direction to therefore then submit the request for an opinion or the initiation of the co-rental process to the Attorney General. But in short, I will just say the grand jury did apparently performed an investigation and say there's a problem. We are not the experts to determine if there is a problem or to do anything if there is a problem.
And so just from a big picture perspective the thought would be if they're saying the Attorney General is the decider then the option that we could identify as ask the Attorney General. So that's sort of the tone that the responses
take.
Thank you, James. Matt?
Yeah one more point to add if I could just emphasize the point the grand jury is incorrect in their statement that the council alone has the power to remove a city council member The council does not have that power. The process to remove a council member, if there is a residency question or any other contested right to hold the office and not hold the office has to go through the Colorado process which is Latin for by what right does and the implications by what right does this person hold the office? It's a two-step process. Step one is a request to the attorney general for an opinion regarding whether the person is or is not entitled to hold the office The Attorney General looks at two questions in that opinion. One is, is there a substantial question of law or fact about the right to hold the office?
And two, is the matter worthy of resolution through the courts? Is it in the public interest that the matter be resolved? Typically if there are substantial questions of law or fact regarding whether a council member is or is not entitled to hold the office. The Attorney General will find that question is worthy of assessment by court. The Attorney General then issues an opinion that states yes or no as to whether the suit can or cannot go forward From there, then a lawsuit must be filed challenging the right to hold office by the challenged council member and then litigate through the courts. And that lawsuit once it's brought is brought in the name of the people of the state of California with the Attorney General's permission and in close collaboration with the Attorney General.
The Attorney General must approve every complaint and every court filing and you litigated together with the Attorney General. And then the court outcome is the court outcome only a judge can remove a council member from office in the context of a residency question. Not the Council alone, and not even the AG alone. The AG issues an opinion that then starts a court process.
Thank you.
Thank you Matt. All right any questions from
Council? So if I heard correctly what you just said that To go to the Attorney General initially doesn't involve tens of thousands of dollars as the report stated. We get an opinion whether he wants to go forward, that's one question I have.
I mean it'll be several thousand to write up the facts and present it to the Attorney General. It will depend in part on how much typically the process is a request for an opinion from the Attorney General. 10 hours to write, so a couple thousand, 2,000. Then the Attorney General will typically ask for a response from the challenged official who can then put their own response together and then it depends on how much is litigated from there but it shouldn't be too much. The cost will come if the lawsuit is filed of course, substantial costs but there are some costs up front depending on how much it's fought.
That's very good to know and I also heard the City Manager say that we have 90 days to respond, that's correct?
To honor about August 12th by my math. Yeah,
and then my other question is Can we can the council also consider a simple receive and file? We send this basically the staff report the findings that we accept in the findings that we That our city attorney, and thank you for doing such a wonderful job by the way. I almost called you right on the spot when I read it It was just great the way that you did challenge the grand jury findings. I thought that was excellent So but do we have the option to actually in?
To basically do nothing The council can receive file a report respond to the grand jury and then And I'll continue serving and I'll continue seeking housing, which I was hoping I would have very good news tonight. I'm getting close but and I'll discuss that one after the public comment
Yeah, it's certainly an option for the council The council is required by law to respond to the grand jury component. Whether to do something above that or beyond that is an option for the council, and there's sort of three options. Do nothing or take no action beyond responding to the grand jury. Option two is ask the attorney general for an opinion regarding this situation and not necessarily initiate the lawsuit. Just start with the opinion. What is the situation? Or three would be take the position that the seat's vacant and then initiate a removal process.
So three basic choices.
Thank you. Council Member Lange?
I have a question, so if we went with option two asking the Attorney General about the opinion would it be possible for us to advocate on her behalf like us as council members like what i'm wondering is if the attorney general's opinion if they find her within the like if they find that she's okay and it settles the deal, and we don't have to go into litigation.
Can we do things to support that decision or support...
Yeah, the council can ask for an AG's opinion and lay out a case that shows there is not a vacancy in the course of that request. And the council could also supplement it with additional letters on individual letterhead from the community to the AG supporting one or the other. Thank you.
Mayor we have a raised hand from Council Member Rule.
Okay, good. Council Member Rule?
Yeah hi I have a couple of points of clarification. Is it possible for the City Council to change the ordinance is it our ordinance that says that if you in other words look We're looking at the situation where a renter who has been a long-term council person loses her housing due to no fault of her own. And because of the district and the small nature of that district, and also, you know, um, the fact that there are very... There are less rentals in her district for instance than in my district. So it's compounding the idea. Um, so is it possible for the City Council To change its ordinance to say that if a renter who is a city council person loses her home or his home through no fault of their own, that they can maintain their position as a council person.
Until the end of their term, is that something that we can do so that's my first question. In other words, rewrite the ordinance because I think when that ordinance was written you know these situations occur it's like he would never you know. You would never really think about well, you know, what if this happened and your four steps down the road and it's kind of like this perfect storm.
But guess what? It did happen. So that's my first question. Then I would like to also bring into the fact the Malibu lawsuit is now which Had which had to do with districts. I'd like a little bit of context from the city attorney about where that stands, because I know that our position around districting was to avoid the lawsuit that we have let Malibu take the lead in and I think that is winding up although I could be incorrect in that so any sort of Clarification that the city attorney could give on that would also be most helpful.
And I guess here, because last council session we talked about how the grand jury was their findings held some sort of special importance that potentially the district attorney's determination did not. And I wanted to point out because I did some research on this, that the civil grand jury is made up of 12 people who volunteer for a position who may or may not know the law i.e., they have asked us to do something that we are not capable of doing so they must not really understand the laws in which they are making recommendations although they might, I don't really know
Just a reminder Councilmember, we're still on questions not comments.
Yeah yeah so this is my question to that is and I think that council person Council Member Francina or it might have been Council Member Lange said that we can just simply say thank you for your findings 12 citizens of You know, whomever and but we're going to file this. We can do that. We can take no action. That is correct. And so those are my questions to both city attorney and also city manager if you can weigh in on this I would appreciate that as well just so we have some context. But the main question is can we change an ordinance? Can we change our ordinance that has put us in this situation and has put Pro Tem Francina in this position through no fault of her own?
I will also point out she won by 15 points on her last election. So thank you, those are my questions to City Attorney and City Manager.
Happy to answer them. I'll take them in order. Can we rewrite the ordinance to provide that a renter who is a council member elected to a district, who is then dispossessed from their district through no fault of their own remains an office at the end of their term? Yes, the Council can rewrite the ordinance to so provide. However that may be vulnerable to challenge.
Government Code Section 1770 subsection E which that section 1770 provides a number of ways that an office becomes vacant death resignation recall conviction of certain crimes Subsection E states, in part, that an office becomes vacant when an elected officer, quote, ceases to be an inhabitant of the state or if the office be local and one for which local residence is required by law of the district, county, or city for which the officer was chosen or appointed or within which the duties of his or her office are required to be discharged.
There, it provides a clear statement of state law. Loss of residency when residency is required removes the ability for the officer to hold the seat and creates the vulnerability that challenged through the Colorado process. What's left unsaid in that law is how long? Similarly, government code section 36502, provides that if during his or her term of office, he or she moves his or her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an electorate of the city. His or her office shall immediately become vacant.
Courts have read those two together to provide that loss of residency when residency is required within a district it creates an immediate vacancy however courts have also validated a period of time to re-establish residency The city's current 30-day standard is a standard across almost, maybe not almost all but most of the cities that have districts. The council could adopt an ordinance to go further to provide either a longer but still time limited period of time Or even to have a straight up rent or protection provision that may then be vulnerable to challenge. I'm not aware of any city that has tried that, so I don't know. I am not off the top of my head aware that it's been validated one way or the other in the courts.
Certainly would be happy to research that if there was interest on the council to understand has anybody tried this and if so can we win? But certainly it's a choice. Yes, the council could do it but it may be vulnerable to challenge second question. The state Supreme Court case on the California Voting Rights Act which is Santa Monica not Malibu. Thank you. The Santa Monica case is set for oral argument at the State Supreme Court the morning of our next meeting, June 27th. We won't know that day how they have ruled but we will have a decent sense from argument of how they may rule.
It's the same as the tea leaf reading with the Federal Supreme Court. The questions tell you a lot. They are required by law if the court takes the case under submission meaning they bring it to themselves then they have 90 days to rule The key in that is that the court chooses when to take the case under submission. They might ask for a further briefing, they might ask for further argument. However because the court has sat on the case for two and a half years I expect they didn't set it for argument until they were ready to rule so I think the court will give us a ruling by the end of September.
If the court rules in a way that is broader than...that is favorable to local control and that is broader than Santa Monica, something specific just to them. Then the council may be able to shift back at large and get rid of districts or take some other action perhaps exercising the power granted by the voters to shift to a ranked choice instant runoff voting system as was approved in the last election as an option not a requirement It's a little bit uncertain to see what the court will or will not do.
There's lots of speculation but no real answer until they tell us what they're going to do based on their questions and their ruling. We certainly are, we'll be watching that argument that morning and we'll be providing updates to the council as the matter, that case moves forward so that may provide a solution but the other thing to bear in mind is if the courts outcome is a ruling that cities may switch back to at large I would expect that it will not invalidate districts that are presently existent. So, it may not solve the problem as to whether there is or is not a vacancy as of 30 days after the mayor pro tem may have left her prior residency.
I don't know the facts but it may not solve the problem on that front. Stay tuned. Third question can the council simply provide a response to the civil grand jury and take no further action? Yes, that is an option
1:25 – 1:3012 turns
Thank you, thank you. I do have a question. We do have a letter from the city clerk. I was wondering if we could actually hear from the city clerk to...
I know she's present, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry, should've mentioned that. So yeah, in the grand jury's report they asked the City Council for a response and then our independently elected city clerk for a response. Our clerk has put together a response and is available if there's any questions. Sure, okay. So the elected city clerk. Okay.
Thank you
Cynthia My response in your council packet, okay Yes, so if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them
Do you mind would you mind just summarizing you for the public that
I can read to you? The two responses I gave Do you have a copy there? I could get it from outside. Isn't this for after public
comment? Yeah, I have. I'm going to...I have a statement. Okay. Excuse
me?
We'll do it now I guess. Go ahead.
Okay. I was asked to respond to F1, which their quote was the grand jury finds that after an election there is no provision for the Ojai City Clerk to periodically re-verify city council members continue to reside within their district in compliance with Ojai Municipal Code 889 section... 2.6 and my response to that was it is true that there is no provision in the Ojai Municipal Code to periodically re-verify council member residency, the California Election Code already requires elected officials at all times to reside and be registered to vote within their jurisdiction that they were elected to. As a city clerk official, I have no objection to amending the Ojai Municipal Code to require elected officials to recertify their qualifications annually by signing a document under penalty of perjury that they one reside within their district and two are registered to vote where they reside The municipal code could also require any elected official to notify the city clerk within 15 days of a change of residency or change of voter registration.
The election code empowers the city clerk to review voter registration at any time, however, the municipal code can require that the city clerk verify voter registration at least once a year. Excuse me, my response to R01. Their comment was the grand jury recommends that Ojai City officials develop and implement a procedure to not only ensure proper pre-election verification of residency compliance of candidates per California election code, but also timely notifications of residency change and periodic re-verification of residency compliance for elected council members. The grand jury recommends the procedure be implemented within 90 days of the receipt of this report.
My response to that was the California Election Code requires candidates to sign an oath that they reside and are registered to vote within the jurisdiction they will represent. This election code requires the elected official, the city clerk to verify voter registration prior to ensuing nomination papers. In addition, each circulatory of the nomination papers and each signer must be registered voters of the district. The voter registration of all candidates, circulatories and signers are Re-verified by the Ventura County election official when they review nomination papers to determine if they are enough qualified signers to nominate the candidate for office. The post-election periodic recertification of residency and registration could be managed as explained in the response to the previous findings.
Thank you. I appreciate that, Cynthia. Andy's turn for questions? Yeah,
I've got some questions. First, just as clarification, is it the intent that Councilmember Francina is going to be voting on this matter?
1:30 – 1:4124 turns
The question was whether Mayor Pro Tem Francina will be voting on the matter. It is now acknowledged to be about her, so I think my advice would be for her to recuse but we can...
Excuse me what was your response?
As the matter is now acknowledged to be about you as opposed to the grand jury's fig leaf of who it is not about, it may be wise for you to recuse on that.
But I want to respond to what you just said. It's not just about me. It is about any elected official that is a renter and could be displaced at anytime There's at least three issues that I'm going to address. The clerk's letter, I want to address all these things after public comment and if there is a point because there's like at least three motions that need to be made tonight and if one of them pertains only to me, I'd be happy to recuse myself but I will not recuse myself on the issue of amending the municipal code because that applies in general not just to me And there's other issues as well. It's not so black and white, it's way more nuanced than that.
It may be wise to visit it as each motion is made? Yeah, yes. Certainly the basic item to simply respond to the grand jury is neutralized any council member at least as drafted. My suggestion would be we see how the motions come out and then assess recusal based on each motion is made. All right,
so We just talked about this case that's pending For this California Supreme Court and I Am wondering now you know So my understanding is that historically in something like 2014, the
California
Supreme Court made a ruling that raised a red flag that at-large elections might create a situation where minority groups were being underrepresented. Is that
a
fair
statement? Yeah, it was 13 to 14 but
yeah. And then the legislature set up not a mandatory method but kind of an option for cities to opt into creating election laws for districts
Yes, the California Voting Rights Act which had always existed as sort of a generic provision supporting voting rights was given significantly greater teeth in around 2015 or so with the provision that created a special process by which cities can switch from at-large to districts. And then it was later modified in 16 or so to have the safe harbor provision in terms of the amount of attorney's fees There was a case that came down regarding the city of Palmdale who had, it was a charter city and sought to argue that they were not required to switch to districts because they're a charter city. They lost that argument and in the course of that they ended up paying 10 or 15 million dollars in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, the same plaintiffs in this case who brought the process forward for Ojai.
In response, the legislature amended the Voting Rights Act to create this safe harbor process. That if a city receives a letter stating concern regarding possible racially polarized voting and demanding a switch then a city can decide what to do within 45 days then switch within 90 days and then with slight adjustments on timing if it negotiated and then if they do all of that and make the switch at the end then the attorney's fees owed to the pre-plaintiff are capped at $30,000 That was what the legislature did as a give to the cities after the Palmdale case came down, but they didn't otherwise amend the statute regarding when districts are and are not required to switch. And if I could finish up two more points, the outcome was Two things happened.
One, the plaintiff's groups some with clear motivation to actually advance the goals of their communities and some with other goals moved forward quickly to send letters to lots and lots of places particularly small places demanding a switch. Places that wouldn't be able to afford the 10 30 Santa Monica something already spent something like 20 million in their case and counting.
Agencies whose budgets can't support that forcing them to fight or switch And the safe harbor that was intended to be a cap, $30,000 cap became a floor. And the net effect of the legislature's attempt to help the problem resulted in cities having to choose switch and pay 30,000 or fight and pay millions. And you may or may not win. And most cities made the rational choice including Ojai back in 2018. The rational choice switched to districts, cap it at 30,00 we were able to negotiate a discount here to only 28,000 and change I know something And then, of course, switch to districts with the consequences that have followed.
Okay and then what is being argued at the Supreme Court that is going to potentially impact this district model of voting?
In the Santa Monica case, to summarize a couple thousand pages of briefing, the plaintiffs contend that Santa Monica's existing at-large system was harmful to Latino voting representation. And they prevailed—the city prevailed on the trial court I'm sorry, the plaintiffs prevailed the trial court and then the Court of Appeal flipped it and ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the showing. In part concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown that the result of any given election going back a certain amount of time would have been different. They hadn't shown that having districts as opposed to at-large would have resulted in any on-the-ground changes in any past elections. That was how the Court of Appeal interpreted the standard. Under the State Voting Rights Act, it's fairly nebulous.
It says racially polarized voting exists if there is indications that voters vote in part based on race. Statistical analyses that show, is there correlations between racial groups as measured by census tracts and precincts? And marrying precinct data where you get voter data and census tract data where you can put the two together. Because of course secret ballots we have no idea how anyone votes but we know how precincts vote match that against census data from race and sort of put it together with statistics. And the Court of Appeal found that wasn't enough to show racially polarized voting. That you had to show that something was different What's unknown is, the issue that's up on review for the Supreme Court is what is the standard required to show racially polarized voting exists?
Is it the court of appeals standard if there has to have been a difference in the outcome or predicted difference than in the outcome of future election? Or is it the plaintiff lower standard of where the voters are voting in part based on race. It's unclear how the court will rule. It's worth noting that the Federal Voting Rights Act requires that you show that you can create a majority-minority district for the relevant minority or that there would be a difference in the election, and there is some opinion that the Court of Appeals decision imported that standard back into the State Voting Rights Act. However, the State Voting Rights Act has an express provision rejecting that part of what's called the Gingells Test, rejecting the majority-minority district rule.
It's unclear if the Court of Appeals' decision that in part imported that back into the State Voting Rights Act will or will not survive review However, the hope is that the state Supreme Court will give us some clarity on what is the test to prove racially polarized voting which could then be used once it's clearly stated if they stated clearly could be used by cities that have.
By all accounts no history of racially polarized voting in part because they're fairly homogenous. to use that to show that there was no need to have switched and then to switch back. And the question that we don't know the answer to yet will be how narrowly or broadly does the court rule? A, do they rule in favor of cities in the first place? Start with that. B, if they rule in favor of cities is it broader, is it narrow and how could we take advantage of it to consider switching back but that's sort of a bit of an unknown at this point.
So the Supreme Court could be just deciding the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial that was presented in front of a trial judge who tried the Santa Monica case and not make any type of a finding whatsoever about whether the Voting Rights Act, which brought in the district voting is invalidated or subject to challenge.
Yeah, they could rule very narrowly or they could rule very broadly. And they can rule in favor of the cities or against the cities so they could rule very narrowly that the evidence was sufficient to support the Santa Monica trial court victory and require Santa Monica to switch and say nothing that helps any one way or the other gives any guidance to the rest of the state.
Or they could rule that the whole thing is unconstitutional. Anywhere in the middle, and I have no crystal ball to predict where we come out. But you're right, it could be narrow. It may not impact this case at all or this particular question, or it might provide a roadmap by which the city can switch back to At Large or something in the middle. We'll know something by the end of September assuming they take the case under submission Of course, that's after the deadline to respond to the grand jury's response. And part of it is the council could... Back to the options. The council could decide what is
this? Sorry Matt, can I ask the audience just... We can hear a conversation up here so if you could stay silent, that would be great.
Go
ahead.
Last comment I was gonna say is the council could respond to the grand jury with the responses drafted and then defer question whether or not to initiate something with the Attorney General until after we know the outcome of the statesman court case. That's also a choice.
Thank you very much, Matt. Council Member Ruhl, you have another question?
I do, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't speaking only about renters. I was speaking about folks that lost their home and that could be homeowners who by virtue of a fire or by virtue of a flood or by virtue of an earthquake so it's anyone who becomes unsheltered not just renters although the obviously the vast majority of people who would be at risk of losing their home would be renters, but there are also possibilities for natural disasters to take away a homeowner's home. So I just wanted to clarify that.
We will move on to public comment now. First we have Liz Campos then we have Bill Miley and then Shalom Joshua
1:41 – 1:4811 turns
Okay, first I need to just clarify. I don't want you to feel like it's the pot calling the kettle black here. I recognize Ventura has all kinds of silly things going on too But I did come here tonight to address one small aspect of this. I want to thank you, Mayor Sticks because your comments at the beginning about what we've all been through the last seven years and how divisive our communities can be in reminding people to remain civil and kind through this process is very important It's important in all of our public and civic meetings. It's important in the community when we're walking through the park, so I know that there's a lot of animosity in the comments on social media regarding this that I'm not seeing here at your council.
I wanted to mention that this is a very important and cautious decision you're about to make because any one of us, as an unelected official myself, any one of us can be threatened with loss of our position or loss of our home at any time. So I'm not just here as Liz Campos from Ventura City Council I'm here as a City Council person in a district where during the campaign, my landlord who didn't agree with my politics kicked me out.
So I too am homeless. It doesn't make me any less viable or capable to do the job that I do on Ventura City Council. It doesn't affect my relationships with the community, or my care for our fiduciary duty. Hard word for me. And I think there's something in the law about taking corrective action. So, I would suggest you may want to discuss whether Council Member Francina or I'm sorry Mayor Pro Tem Francina has been able to correct the deficiency just by living within her district even in a vehicle.
That's what I've been forced to do in Ventura because there is no wheelchair housing available in my district. So, I live in a vehicle in someone's driveway. That address was reported to the FPPC when I moved out of where I was living and I think that if Mayor Pro Tem Francina is able to continue doing that for now. She's corrected the deficiency, I would leave it up to your attorney to recognize if the law allows that.
But just
a quick question. Hold on just one second let's make sure to come through the chair so
He may be wanting to say what
I was just gonna ask so since Since you've lost your Residence in your district. You've lived in your vehicle in your district
I've been able to do that. I would like you to consider that my district is About the same size as the entire city of Ojai So it's quite different
Okay. I just want to correct for the public that I'm not actually living in my van, although if I cannot find housing then I will get some kind of camper van and park it in the city parking lot. We need a safe parking lot anyway in Ojai. I'm willing to do that but when we get to the part of council discussion, I'll discuss the facts of my situation But I'm not, it's a little different from yours. But if it comes down to it, to keep my seat, I'm willing to do that. We're not there yet.
Thank you Liz. Thank you for hearing me. Thanks for coming. Next we have Bill Miley then Shalom Joshua and then Judy Murphy
So nice of her
to come. Good evening, for the record my name is Bill Miley. The council member elected to District 4 is currently unhoused and registered with the post office as their primary address. It's my understanding that unhoused folks maintain their citizen rights including responsibility for positions obtained through an election Council Member Francina was forced out of her home by gentrification and denied housing due to income limitations and excessively rising rents, and no deed-restricted affordable housing created in the past 30 years within the City of Ojai, especially District 4.
So I understand California law on unhoused citizens has been interpreted to allow her to serve her elected office, unhoused and registered with the post office. Massive effort has been spent in searching for a district four residence by the council member and many others To validate this position, seeking authority from the state of California is one way of resolving this question or permitting the unhoused elected official additional time to obtain residence.
Thank you.
Thank you Bill. Next we have Shalom Joshua then Judy Murphy then Drew Mashburn
1:48 – 1:535 turns
Hello again, I'm Shalom Joshua. I live in the city of Ojai. I think that we are being hassled by what is ironically called the California Voting Rights Act. I think small towns are being affected antagonistically by this act. I think it becomes obvious that we have a problem with the act itself being imposed on small towns. The evidence is ample Voters in small towns lose rights with this act.
Losing rights makes the title of this legislation ironic. There have been problems all along brought into focus with the report of the grand jury. The grand jury's report has one glaring omission in it, it doesn't mention at all what the circumstances are that Sousa has been living in. It's talking as if the reality is on paper that is printed with the California law That's insufficient.
That is hurtful. That is a bad thing to have happen to anybody, and when it happens to a public official, it gets spread all over the region. People read it and believe it's true. It's only partly true. It's true from the point of view of the legislation. It' not true from the experience of the human being The public servant who is suffering through a bad circumstance, not of her creating.
And that is unfair. It is also unfair as I read in our local Ojai Valley News when asked by a reporter that the attorney who pushed this legislation under the threat of litigation on this city when he was asked about what had happened to Mayor Pro Tem Francina, now being fingered as a person who has lost her seat. I'll just finish that thought. Says, I think that has very little... That the act, the legislative act has very little to do with what has happened to Ms. Francina.
I beg to differ. Thank you, Shalom. Next we have Judy Murphy then Drew Mashburn and then Dee Reed. Good evening,
mayor, council staff. My name is Judy Murphy and I live in Ojai. I must say, I'm really sorry that somebody in this community found it to be a good idea to go to the grand jury and create this mess. I certainly hope that whatever you do, it doesn't involve more litigation for Ojai. We have more than enough of that on our plate. I hope that you can just provide a report to the grand jury and take no further action put this to bed.
I personally would like to see mayor Pro Tem Susan stay in the office because her voters put her there and they've done it for years by a large percentage. The idea of just appointing someone to replace her just doesn't feel very democratic to me, thank you.
Thank you Judy. Next we have Drew Mashburn then Dee Reed then Jeffrey Starkweather.
Let me put on my shield.
1:53 – 2:0814 turns
Good evening all, especially the City Council. I'm Drew Mashburn. I am a lifelong resident of the Ojai Valley. As a Badge Park Ranger for 41 years before I retired, a major part of my job was law enforcement. I met a lot of people in difficult situations but my job like yours It was to uphold the law regardless of how I felt about it. The City of Ojai's districting law states, in quotes, termination of residency in a district by a member of the city council elected by district shall create a vacancy for that city council district unless they substitute residents within the district is immediately declared and established within 30 days.
After the termination of the residency. In the event that a vacancy is created as a result of termination of residency is provided here in such vacancy shall be filled pursuant to the provisions of the election code, end quotes. Mayor Pro Tem Francina has lived outside of the district four, the district she was elected represent for at least a year. On June 28, 2022 she declared her residency in District 3 by registering to vote in that district and later did vote in that district.
The previous council should have vacated her seat 30 days after she moved from the District 4 but they did not therefore the problem got transferred to all of you. The situation has gone on long enough all of you including Sousa took oaths to uphold the laws. To honor your oath, I strongly, strongly urge you to uphold the present laws. To do otherwise would surely lead to council members being complicit in violating the law and possibly placing themselves as well as the city in legal jeopardy. The rule of law and democracy for all of us should not be sacrificed for one individual.
Acting with integrity may come as some personal or political cost to you. But emotions, opinions and pressure from a vocal segment of the public should not play into your decision. Doing nothing is no longer an option. To honor your oaths you must first uphold the law, immediately declare Ms. Francina's seat vacant and promptly Promptly appoint an interim council member to serve until a special election can be held.
Sousa must recuse herself before any such vote is taken. I'm real sorry, I have to be here tonight but we've gotten to this point.
May I make a correction? Just one point. First of all, Drew and I are longtime friends. His mother was the oldest mother at Ojai Community Nursery School and I was the youngest mother so we go way back so I'm fine with his opinion but I do want to correct your comment about me voting in District 3 that was a mistake made by county elections and I've tried to address that I have a document that clearly states that I am houseless. I never terminated my residency in District 4, which I'll explain a little more later and I did not vote for a District 3 candidate. I only voted for the mayor at large. I would not do that. I did not realize that I should have sent my ballot back It came to my District 4 PO box and as I was filling it out, the only difference between the ballots of District 3 and 4 is that Council Member Whitman and the candidate Renee Roth.
That's the only difference between the two ballots and I did not vote for either of those candidates so I did not do anything wrong.
In your opinion?
OK, next we have Dee Reed then Jeffrey Starkweather then William Wyrick.
I have a
different view.
I believe the Ojai City Council should take no action to oust Mayor Pro-Term Sousa Francina while she seeks permanent rental housing in her district after a no fault eviction from her previous long term housing there. Sousa is an outstanding leader and vital voice for all her district constituents, and all of us who live in the Valley whose quality of life is directly impacted by the actions taken by the City Council.
She is guilty of no crime, no wrongdoing. Indeed perhaps what is most troubling is she is a stellar example of a longtime renter who is now personally experiencing what has gone terribly wrong in our Shangri-La Sousa is living the nightmare of all Ojai renters, who by the way make up 47% of Ojai's population. Nearly half. They all dread the day their landlords realize it is considerably more profitable to sell their properties or to improve them to jack up their rents which is their right to do.
Our latest nomads include teachers, law enforcement officers, cooks, artists, public school students and now the mayor pro tem. Our friends at Help of Ojai say that most who are forced to leave their Ojai rentals End up having to leave the valley because there is no place here for them anymore. Let me repeat that, because there is no place here for them anymore. You get evicted, there's no place to go. This glaring reality hurts them as well as the rest of us who will lose their important contributions to our community and our public schools.
The nightmare has been unfolding right under our noses. I recently said a sad goodbye to one of the public school students I have been working with, her family moved out of state for affordable housing. They're gone now but as you know plummeting student enrollments have closed two elementary schools and a middle school. Sousa Francina personally understands a growing problem that can no longer be ignored While the City Council may have the authority to recommend some action against their legally elected beloved senior colleague in her time of need, they are certainly not required to do so.
I would say let's instead do what the mayor has suggested and take the high road. And let's learn from her experience, let's allow her to remain in her seat until her term expires as an example of what's troubling all Ojai renters. Let's not punish her for becoming a living example of our growing need for affordable housing. Our city and the valley need her continued diligent leadership especially now.
Thank you, Dee. And I just wanted to remind the public that we did pass rent stabilization and tenant protection a couple of months ago so it was before... It was after you were evicted but that is happening. They can't
move into the rent stabilization. There isn't any place to go. They didn't
use money to move back. Okay. Jeffrey Starkweather then William Wyrick and then Ulrich Brugger.
Thank you. I have to agree with my wife, I always do And with my housing committee partner, Judy Murphy that we should do nothing. We don't need any more legal costs and I don't think the Attorney General will do anything on this anyway certainly not in an election year. This is a politically motivated attempt to discriminate against a renter who has made a good faith effort to find housing in her district Francina has consistently been endorsed by the Ojai Valley Democratic, I'm actually speaking for the Ojai Democratic Club. Thanks to her outstanding record as a hardworking and accountable representative of her constituents prior to the 2020 election she represented the entire city now she represents only District 4 which she continues to represent well despite a no-fault eviction in late 2021 She has been unable to find full-time rental housing in her district due to the city's failure to build affordable housing for the last 30 years.
She is essentially homeless. The city was forced into a dysfunctional small district voting system in 2020, and Francina won her district with a large margin. In 2022, the voters overwhelmingly voted to eliminate districts And move back to at large elections with rank choice when that was legally feasible. That campaign was led by the way, by the Ojai Valley Democratic Club.
I would add that it is possible that small cities can violate election laws because there are cities particularly in San Joaquin Valley where Hispanic residents are concentrated and they don't have a voice but under any standard Under any legal standard, Ojai does not meet a violation of the Voting Rights Act. And also one thing I would do and I hope you would encourage what I'm doing as I've asked our legislators to put in a local bill that would change it because I know this county of Santa Clara has done that.
It is inconceivable by her opponents or the community in the community would wish to oust this native and one of the most popular and effective elected officials after years of exemplary service in the city and valley. It is especially disturbing that they appear to be punishing her for not toeing the simply Ojai anti-housing and anti-business line, instead she insists on evaluating each issue with an independent and open mind. Her experience failing to find housing in her district has deepened her commitment to new Affordable housing that is why the housing insecure in this community need Sousa Francinia to be on our City Council. Thank you
Thank You Jeffrey next we have William Weirich then Ulrich Brugger and then Barbara Bowman
I want to mention to the council a few things. First and foremost, I think a good principle is to make a decision especially difficult decisions when one has the most available information. And information is going to be developing now before the grand jury deadline. You know, uh, the Pico and Neighborhood Association versus Santa Monica case was decided in favor of Santa Monica. In fact, the city attorney in a memo to the City Council on July 9th 2020 said The court held that the plaintiff did not prove that district voting would have improved minority voters' outcomes over those experienced under at-large voting, and therefore that the dilution did not exist.
His first statement in the memo was Santa Monica won its California Voting Rights Act challenge today. That is the highest level of court ruling to date! And then finally, his recommendation in 2020 was we recommend holding tight to see if the victory stands. If it does, we'll need to evaluate whether there's a possibility of defensibly returning to at-large voting.
Supreme Court is taking up oral arguments on June 27th as has always been stated well in advance of the deadline the grand jury has stated for August 12th. At the very least, as the city attorney has just mentioned, we ought to at least see how those oral arguments are going before making any kind of decision or taking any action. In fact, the only action I would suggest this council take is given the small numbers problem that's been well documented both in the appeals court case is to maybe file an additional amicus brief with the Supreme Court case.
That would be an action that would be appropriate by this council. And just a couple other things, the trial court, the appeals court mentioned that the trial court had other ways of handling the situation of minority representation one being rank choice voting Which our voters expressed overwhelmingly positive support for in a direct election saying, Measure M. Saying which was authorized this council to proceed with an alternative to districting to achieve the goals of the California Voting Rights Act especially given how the Supreme Court case may be going which is almost three years old now since it was appealed and I don't have time to mention anything except one comment by the appeals court that the trial court departed from equal protection standards.
Its departure invalidates its conclusions, which was upholding the districting in Santa Monica. I really think we ought to at least wait for more information to be developed. Thank you.
Thank you Bill. Next we have Ulrich Brugger then Barbara Bowman and then Lenny Klaif.
2:08 – 2:1910 turns
Mayor, City Council member. My name is Ulrich Brugger. Can you hear me now? Okay thank you. Mayor, City Council members my name is Ulrich Brugger and I reside in Ojai and I'm not a member of any political party I totally agree with the editor of the Ojai Valley News who stated, the grand jury got it wrong. The city council can make it right. I have three recommendations.
I suggest not to pursue an attorney general lawsuit because it could have serious legal consequences for the City Council. Based on two great attorneys, such a legal action would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution And second, it would violate the equal protection rights of the voters of District 4.
And third, it would violate California law that prohibits discrimination against certain classes of people such as houseless and homeless people. My second recommendation would be to use common sense trying to remove A colleague from the City Council, your colleague from the City Council would not be fair because she has seriously been looking for housing in District 4.
Also what happened to her could happen to each one of you. And third, I would recommend if legally advisable to amend the municipal code so that any council member could maintain their seat if faced with an unintended loss of housing. In summary, I recommend not to go the legal route. To use common sense to resolve this simple human problem and if advisable amend the municipal code. We need Susan. She represents the spirit of Ojai.
Thank you. Thank you Ulrich. Next we have Barbara Bowman then Lenny Klaif then Robin Gerber.
Hi,
Barbara Bowman. Excuse me it's getting cold out there I just wanted to say something Mayor Sticks every meeting the Open Council meetings you start with talking about regarding kindness community unity compassion respect and With regards to Sousa there has been no compassion in No regards for her situation. And whoever started this fiasco, shame on them because this was started. The Attorney General did not just become aware that Sousa wasn't living in District 4. Somebody put the idea out there or somebody wrote somebody and that whole thing started. And the great irony of this whole thing is that sitting behind you are eight acres of land that were recommended for affordable housing And that was all shot down because we told the people of Ojai, they should be terrified that we are taking their park away.
They wouldn't have a park. That eight acres would make wonderful things for either the Cabrillo group or the Dignity Move group. Any of these groups could use that land to create housing. And our Sunset would not be in this situation. But what did we do? We voted those down, or we terrified the public so that everybody came here saying they would no longer have parks. Can you believe they're trying to take your park away? Have you ever walked back there? Nobody goes back there! It's a desolate eight acres that nobody ever uses. So every time she is the victim of what this council has been voting down over and over again, every affordable housing unit they just don't go for it. And as Bill Miley said was at 30 years we have not had any affordable housing built and we have some on the agenda I hope you pass them all And I think that it's just a tremendously ironic situation that the same people that are putting her in this position of trying to vote her off the council because she has seen that we need affordable housing, are the same people that are creating the situation as why we don't have affordable housing.
So I think there's so much irony there that it's, and Susan, I hope that they show the kindness, community unity and compassion that you keep putting forward every single meeting. Here would be a great time to use it and do nothing.
Thank you Barbara. Next we have Lenny Klaif then Robin Gerber and then Hawk Koch.
I could be incorrect but I think there is one way to get rid of a council member that has not been mentioned and that's recall. And I don't know that anybody in District 4 is interested in recalling their representative. There has been no allegation that she has represented a district less seriously, with less dedication.
There's one, one.
One? Okay. Out of... Well, I'm not going to ask questions. So there is a way. This situation has developed because we were blackmailed by some lawyer in Malibu into going, the same way the school district was and other communities throughout California forcing us into this stupid district thing. In a city with I don't know how many, maybe 4,000 voters if there's 8,000 people.
We have to have districts it's stupid and this is one of the negative consequences of such stupidity. Somebody brought up rule of the law, and that's been in people's minds rather a bit lately. Nobody is supposed to be above the law. But sometimes the law can be an ass. as somebody else has said. And trying to force Sousa off the council because she became homeless through no fault of her own is an example of using the law against the spirit of the law, against the spirit of our Constitution, against the spirit of our community, against the spirit of everything that we are supposed to hold dear that we hold ourselves out as holding dear in this community.
Like I said, I've been resident of Ojai for a little bit more than 30 years. I probably known Susan if not the entire time pretty darn close. There is nobody that works harder at being a council member. There's nobody who spends more time than she does thinking about and studying and asking opinions about the issue. If I unsuccessfully ran several times and if I had won, I would hope that I would be half the council person that she is.
My suggestion is we write a letter to the grand jury saying thank you for your inquiry, very truly yours.
Thanks Lenny. Next we have Robin Gerber and then Hawk Koch.
Robin Gerber, I live in Ojai and I have to follow the ever Sensible and brilliant Lenny Klaif, but there you go. Susan was overwhelmingly elected to her district and has never terminated her residence under the meaning of that term in our municipal code and has made every effort to find in-district housing The termination of residency language in our municipal code is found in many others around the state It's meant to maintain continuity of representation for instance If Miss Francina had chosen to move out of the district and hadn't changed her mind in 30 days, then her seat could be quickly filled.
At the time the districting ordinance was passed in 2018 and I watched the video this termination of residency language was given little thought. After all, if an elected official was thrown out of a rental in 2018 there were plenty of places that you could go. Plenty of affordable rentals. To attempt to unseat Ms. Francina using this outdated ill-conceived language is saying to her constituents of which I'm one we don't care that you overwhelmingly wanted Sousa she had the bad luck to lose her in district housing and a section of the municipal code needing updating lets us try to push her out Taking this issue forward to the state level, we'll be seen for what it is.
The kind of blatant political witch hunt, mean-spirited political hardball that has marked some of you on this council. Such an action would further damage the soul of Ojai which has taken quite a beating of late Amend the municipal code to recognize our current housing dilemma, create an atmosphere where renters and the unhoused can consider running for office without worrying about losing their seat or being driven out of it if they lose their residence.
Show that you care about the housing crisis which you say you do and you did pass those laws. Well, you can show it right here. Susan's situation is just an extension of the affordable housing shortage. Don't spend more time and money on this politically motivated legal maneuvering, and let me just say that you were forward-thinking enough to pass those reach codes that almost no one else in the state had gone that far.
Well done all of you! Here's a place you can all work together again. Change this municipal code in a way that no one else in the state has done. Talk about unhoused people, talk about renters that they should have as fair rights as voters and as people running for office. That might be a way of bringing us all together especially bringing you together and I added that at the end so that's all I have to say thanks. Thank You Robin next we have Hawk Koch
2:19 – 2:2611 turns
Thank you. It was amazing what you said at the beginning, Mayor Sticks and if you live with what you said there is absolutely no way to do anything but forget about this whole issue period just zero I oppose any action to support the removal of Sousa. The city has always tried to be peaceful, kind and fair. There is nothing peaceful, kind or fair about what this issue is period.
The good news is that you have an option The option is do nothing. Goodbye, move on with all the... Please don't scowl! I don't like scowling. There are so many other issues for this community to work on instead of this issue that has taken up My God, almost the entire evening because of something so small. So small. It's inconceivable to me that the council now wish to oust one of the most popular and effective elected officials after years of exemplary service to the city and the valley. So I urge you to keep the qualities of kindness fairness and peace in mind when you make your decision Think about if you make a different decision, how you can live with yourselves after that.
As Neil Simon once said in the movie The Odd Couple, let it be on your head. Thank you.
Thank You Hawk any comments online?
Yes mayor we have two raised hands so far. Thanks Sabrina Venskis followed by Sue Williamson. Sabrina you have the floor.
Thanks can you hear me?
Yes.
Sabrina Venskis citizen of Ojai. So being a lawyer, the rule of law is really important to me. Having a problem with the Voting Rights Act is not a justification to violate the law. Ms. Francina voted this law into fruition and now she's violated the law. And this isn't a personal thing. This is simply a question of whether or not somebody that's violated the law should be held accountable.
And if we allow this one to slide, we're going to have to allow the next one to slide. It becomes a slippery slope. If people have a problem with the Voting Rights Act as judges have always told me when I go and litigate a case and I argue about the law and how it should be interpreted The judge says you need to go to the legislature and get the law changed. I'm here to enforce the law The fact is Susa has not been homeless. She's had a roof over her head, she's got a warm bed to sleep in, she's had a window with the view of Topatopa Mountains for over a year. She has a driveway to park her car in, she has a yard to keep her dogs. When I think of a homeless person, I think of a person living in a tent, a person that doesn't have an actual home to live in, she does.
And, you know, aside from the fact that I think Miss Francina has been dishonest with people. I think that's kind of beside the point issue is that there's been a violation of the law and at the very least what this council should do to ensure that you're upholding democracy in this town Is send it to the Attorney General to send it to a judge, have the judge make determination. I agree that the council should not be the one to make the decision as to whether Ms. Francina should keep her seat or not. That should not be decided by the council, it should be decided by a judge and we cannot allow the grand jury's recommendation to be ignored.
You do that at the peril of our local democracy As you would proceed onto any slippery slope, allowing that to happen. If you allow this one to slide, you're going to have to let the next council member that violates the law slide and you just can't do that. So I would ask that you please Act on the grand jury recommendation as to sending this to quo warranto and let a judge decide whether or not Ms. Francina should keep her seat.
I will also point out, and this is an aside, I find it very ironic that Ms. Francina voted against the city's tenant eviction protections and rent stabilization ordinance when I'm hearing so many of her supporters talk about how she's a victim but then she voted against the eviction protections And I just find that very ironic as far as Well, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you very much
Thank You Sabrina and just a reminder to the audience It's really not helpful to hear talking because then we can't hear So if you could remain silent when there's when someone speaking that would be greatly appreciated one more
We have a few more next we have Sue Williamson followed by Becky and DeeDee dorskind so we have the floor
Hi, Sousa was elected from my district four even though I have disagreed with her on some of her positions particularly the most recent one about tenant protections. I still feel she should be allowed to finish her term while the intent of creating districts is admirable for many reasons and in fact is appropriate for some highly segregated small towns It did not take into account the current housing crisis and how that might affect an elected official who is a renter, and could lose her housing through no fault of her own.
It would be blatant discrimination to disqualify her for being homeless and unable to find housing in her district. The law should be amended to account for a situation such as Sousa has faced. And I'm not exactly sure what role the city can play in that process, I don't know that doing nothing is the best option because this is an issue not just about Sousa, this is about all tenants get elected and could lose their home. And as Leslie pointed out, homeowners could lose their housing. So I think it's an issue that's worth fighting about. I don't know how the best way to do that but I do hope that you will decide on something that will take positive action to fix this problem.
Thank you.
Thank
you Sue. Next we have Becky followed by DeeDee Dorskind. Becky you have the floor?
2:26 – 2:3515 turns
Thank you Weston. I'm Becky Windenwood, 21 year resident of the Ojai Valley. Lies, raw emotion, the desire of one individual and the willingness of public servants to support that single person instead of the good of the whole almost toppled our federal government on January 6th 2021. Tonight you are faced with a similar situation. The previous The truth is, the ordinance does not discriminate against the unhoused. A homeless person can hold office in Ojai as long as they are registered to vote in and sleep each night in the district they represent.
In late 2021, Susie Francina lost her rental in District 4, the district she was elected to represent. Rather than live in her van and her district as Ms. Campos did, she chose to live rent-free in a studio apartment in District 3. Her PO box does not qualify her as a resident of District 4 given that in 2022 she registered to vote and voted in District 3. By changing her voter registration, she declared residency in District three and effectively abandoned her seat in District four When she registered in district three, she gave the cross streets of Grand signal as her address rather than the actual address on North Signal where she was living and still lives.
Indicating to the elections office that she was homeless when she was not. I have also heard that she was offered housing in district four but refused it because no pets were allowed. The grand jury recommended that you acknowledge that a vacancy exists On the seat occupied by a city council member who is not in compliance with the district residency requirement, which is the case for Sousa. If you cannot bring yourselves to do this as Attorney Venske suggested and pass the issue onto a judge to determine or do nothing to respond to the grand jury's recommendation You are derelict in your duty. Do not allow Ms. Francina and public sentiment to force you to collude with her in breaking the law.
We should all be grateful to those courageous Americans who, despite pressure and threats to their lives and political futures, honored their OSF office and protected democracy on January 6th and after. You took an oath of office to uphold the rule of law on behalf of the whole body politic, and not just a single individual. You must not flinch from following their law or delay any longer.
That is what integrity and democracy demand of you, and nothing less. Thank you.
Thank you, Becky.
Last raised hand we have is Deedee Dorskind. Do you have the floor? Didi, are you there?
Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. We are fairly new to the city of Ojai and the reason that we moved there a few years ago was because it is charming. The people are kind. It's acquired a lifestyle. You know being retired they're artists and creative wonderful people. And the first City Council meeting that we watched was when Sousa And Mayor Stix, they were talking about a shower. Putting up a shower and Sousa said she was homeless and every single meeting since that point I've done nothing but listen to Mayor Sticks talk about integrity, transparency, kindness.
And then I have to listen to an attorney that is actually suing the city of Ojai speak up tonight. What happened to Ojai and the quality of human beings that live and reside in your city? I have to say, I'm sorry that the city manager is leaving. I can 100% understand why and he's been the only sane person to run through all of these discussions that you've had.
It's time for you guys to wake up. She is a human being, we are human beings. I am working hard to try and find her housing like I'm sure her constituents and other people in this community are. What kind of people are you to get up there and want to throw off a city council member that has been the longest city council member sitting there, that knows the ins and outs and her constituents love her?
What kind of people are you Becky and Attorney Valesquez or whatever your name is. You people should take a look in the mirror I'm embarrassed to tell you that my friends are watching these meetings and listening to them, because I cannot believe that such a wonderful town would have such dysfunctional human beings on your city council. If it weren't for Sousa and Leslie Rule, I have to tell you, you would be already in the toilet.
And you should be thankful that they actually sit there and know what they're talking about and that they are passionate for their constituents and the people of Ojai. I hope that I never have to speak again at one of your meetings, I am so appalled by your Council members and some of your community leaders, or you say your leaders. We have an attorney that is bashing one of our community leaders which is our city council member and she is suing the city what don't you guys understand about our mayor and her constituents and her people? Thank you DD.
One more on zoom Megan Smith. Megan Smith You have the floor
Yes, hi. Can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Great. Andrew, you can hear me?
Yes.
Andrew Whitman, you can hear me?
Yeah.
Great. So I wanted to point out a few things. In all the disclosures for the meetings when you provide the YouTube link people cannot raise their hands or participate so they can only participate if they follow the Zoom link. So you may want to adjust your communications So that people know not to log in through YouTube, because you can't raise your hand. So you can only participate if you go in through the Zoom link. I would also, I know in past city council meetings we've talked about whether people should identify themselves when they speak in public comment.
I reached out to Matthew Summers and his law firm to ask about the lobbying laws for the Ojai City Council, Ojai. Because Sabrina is suing the city, she has multiple conflicts of interest. And I think that some of the past speakers including Tom Francis they act as lobbyists. So in fact they're not impartial parties, they have special interests at stakes. They're affiliated with three of the five council members of which will create a majority in voting.
So for everybody who's listening, I think we should all be writing to the Ventura County District Attorney. The state district attorney and to be reporting the city council, the mayor Andrew Whitman Rachel Ling. I also think that in what you're doing with Sousa constitutes retribution and I think if somebody follows the paper trail, you all will be held accountable.
Thank you.
Thank you. Is that it? That's all, Mayor. Okay. All right. We will move on to discussion. Would y'all need a break? No,
I'm ready.
Okay. All right. Let's take a few minutes break and we'll be back.
2:39 – 2:411 turns
Okay. Oh.
2:47 – 3:023 turns
Okay, we are back. If you could take your seats please and come to silence. Thank you. Okay, we will move on to discussion. Would anyone like to begin? Sure of course.
Microphone please.
Thank you. I am the only current member of this council that was present for the hearings that resulted in this ordinance if you, I went back and I watched the December 11 2018 video to see how was it Have this section of the code. There was no discussion whatsoever nobody, you know we read it Nobody thought nope. No not a council member Not the city attorney not the former city manager who was the city manager not former mayor Johnny Johnson? no one recognized the implications of that part of the code and Tonight we do have the opportunity to amend it before but before I get to that What we did do, my colleagues on the council at the time is that we asked the city attorney to make it crystal clear that we were adopting this ordinance under what's the word duress?
Is that the right term? And if you look, if you have its ordinance number 889 for anyone who wants to look it up and there's very strong language. I think it's the fourth whereas It says, whereas the city received a letter via certified mail blah blah from Kevin Shagman on behalf of his clients Southwest voter registration education project containing unsubstantiated allegations. That the city's at large electoral system prevents members of Ojai's Latino community from electing their preferred candidate and violates the California Voting Rights Act, and threatening litigation if the city declined to adopt a district-based electoral system. We would never have adopted this if we hadn't been threatened with litigation. And I don't know anyone that disagrees with that.
As far as the allegations that I haven't been honest, that I have had an apartment. That's really a stretch, an apartment. Anyone who's visited...I've invited people who say that to come and visit me. I'd love for them to come and live for 24 hours in my 140 square foot cabin with two dogs Thank you. I have plenty of offers to take a shower, but who wants to take a shower in the middle of the day? Nobody wants me to show up day after day at 6am or midnight when I'm done with the City Council meetings. So my situation is what I would characterize as a major inconvenience, but it doesn't rise to the level of a hardship.
And everyone who thinks that I'm not homeless, I've said this before. I'm going to say it again. Go and look up the definition of homelessness. There are at least four if not six or more categories. It starts with the person who's camping under the bridge, a drug addict, a person on the street who is on death's door. Then it goes up and it includes people like me Who are maybe couch surfing, staying in a room with a friend, living in their car. There are so many categories. Homelessness is if you do not have your own residence with your basic kitchen, bathroom and just basics.
And then I want to address... If I forget anything, I hope somebody will remind me. First of all, even though the city code did not require that I report my status. In the beginning, my house was being remodeled for the first four or five months. I tried to get the house back and even recently I tried to get the accessory dwelling unit behind that house back. That was at Christmas. I tried to get it back. I have applications in here For the for about eight places that I've applied for and when you apply, uh, you know There's 20 if it's a desirable place with reasonable rent. You can be sure they have 20 or 40 other applicants And if I did Get so lucky to to obtain it somebody else is out of luck That's that's how it works now. I also try to rent rooms At least on three separate occasions when I thought I had something, people have accused me of lying.
The truth is when the people that said that they were going to vacate found out that there wasn't anything better in it you know they stayed and you know an eviction process takes six months. The people that were on the property that I was left after the investor bought the property They were an elderly couple in their 80s. They went through a six-month eviction notice, they had nothing to lose because at their age they didn't care. I did care so I left voluntarily but in the end they ended up in a hotel this is long time elder Ojai residents with a cat okay? The cat itself was a problem! They ended up at a motel in Ventura and now they're way out of the area and they're very unhappy about it. They loved it here So, you know as far as the grand jury I want to kind of calm allegations.
I don't know if someone reported me or if they read about it somewhere on you know and because it's obvious that I was seeking housing. It was in the Ventura County Star and our local paper I have good reason, the city did receive several complaints from local residents about me not being in my district. So it's possible that one of those people did report the situation with ulterior motives, that's all possible. When I received the letter from the grand jury, I had no idea what they wanted. I thought they wanted to talk to me about the water lawsuit.
That's what I thought and so I went there on November 1st, and as some of you have heard me say it was the day after Halloween. And I had no idea what to expect is all very mysterious. You know a man was waiting for me in the lobby. I go up these elevators You go into a big room, and they're sitting around a table like this. And I'm sitting in my little chair kind of quite a distance wondering what I'm there for. And it's just like those detective movies when they interrogate you. They start out really nice. They ask me did I enjoy my Halloween? That's what they asked me. That was the first question! And so I said yeah, I have grandkids and we made chit-chat And then after about five minutes, it dawned on me they were asking about my housing situation.
So I explained the unintended consequences of districting. I explained both orally and in writing because they asked for written reports and those written reports are not in the grand jury report. It's like it never happened. There's no mention of the information that I gave them. My district As Councilwoman Liz Campos said, her district is as big as the city of Ojai. My district is approximately 1.2 miles if that. It's the south side of Ojai Avenue and then the old map shows a little boot where they wrote me in because the other council member lived like two minutes away his backyard was on adjacent, you know, right on the border of my property. And then another council member was two blocks up the street Councilmember Ryan blasts, the mayor was on the same street.
That's four of us all on the same street the mayor was on the north side that didn't matter because the mayor is at large. I wasn't really even in my district, they just fabricated it. But legally and according to the regulations and the map... I don't want to get in trouble with them. I was legally in what is called District 4. So, I looked all the time and right now there's been one rental on Zillow for the last two or three weeks Right on the border, on Ojai Avenue. I've made every attempt to obtain it. I've applied and it looks like they're still showing it to people and then there'll be some kind of lottery who gets it or not. And $5,000 for our what's what? I mean that's nice but will you call it the rent?
No, the regulation you passed. Yeah, the rent stabilization for $5,000 it would be very unusual if you could find the deposits now are more in the 8,000-10,000 range. So that is I mean, that's a problem. So anyway, I want to go back to the ordinance itself at that time in this and 2018 you could still drive up and down the street and see for rent signs nobody predicted the situation that we have now, you know, nobody thought about that so When it's, I would like to at the very least ask this council to consider amending section 2-6107 termination of residency because that clearly does not address the present reality.
And again, I have documented my search. I've been very careful to show and in fact I have like you know a year-and-a-half worth of Zillow listings. I haven't deleted them. You just they're on my computer. You can see and then I used to go to Craigslist but there were so many scams on Craigslist. I even fell for one even two weeks ago. I found a house on Korea. I was so excited South Korea only like 3,800 for a three-bedroom house? And then I went and I looked and it dawned on me. I've seen that place on Zillow for 5,800 or something you know the figures might not be right but you get the idea so anyway there i would like to To give some direction to staff, to come back with even one or two sentences. We don't need at this moment to reevaluate the whole code but surely we can find some language that reflects the present reality So that future council members that may lose their housing are not terminated in 30 days.
And correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the state is 60 days. I thought I saw 60 days on the state. I could be wrong. But in any case, I believe that the language should state I'm kind of grappling with it because I have not re-established, I've not terminated my residency as far as the big picture goes. Okay? I have deliberately stayed houseless. I have turned down places that are not in my district because I know that once I move into an apartment or an ADU that's not in my district Then as far as then it's very black and white, then I am no longer in my district. I wish that my friend Shalom who spoke at the podium, I'm on his property it's a most unfortunate that this cabin is not in District 4 but I've never lied about it or pretended otherwise okay And if this council makes a decision that they think that I need to sleep, as far as living in my van goes.
I used to hardly ever drive my van. As most of you know, I was on my bicycle but now all my stuff is in my van, I can't leave my dogs in this tiny space. I take them to county meetings, I find shade for all intents and purposes I'm a very clean, homeless person. Okay? So I am very, very resilient. So what is actually happening is that the current law, the way it's written, it does the opposite of what the law had intended to do. I'm in many ways a minority. I'm not wealthy, I'm not a homeowner. It's a law that discriminates so there must be some language that we could work together to...
I have some other notes about the language that changes the 30-day In fact, it should also include that if you're evicted because of a remodel. For the first four or five months the house was being remodeled but I still according to the way the ordinance is written, I couldn't wait for the remodel to be finished. I was supposed to find housing in 30 days. Is that right?
It has to consider the reality and if you lose your house For any situation that's out of your control but you make good faith effort to find housing in your district, then you can remain on the council till the end of your term. And I don't know if you want to broaden that account. That does mean that the council member would have to do like I do, find a friend to live with or live in their van or whatever. But it certainly shouldn't be so cold and harsh as it is now.
Do you need any more feedback on that? Should we hear from other council members?
3:02 – 3:1435 turns
Yeah. We need a motion, second and a vote at the right time.
At the right time. And then I want to do some other motions but I might not be able to vote on those when we get to it. Tell me.
Yeah, we need to understand what the motions are before we can assess. I can't read your mind.
OK, thank you. Council Member Lang? Yes. Well, this is just all that you've been through trying to find a house within your district. At any time, you could have said this is too hard. I'm going to resign.
I did say that but I
let it pass. And, you know, hearing about your challenges with getting showers and your clothes being in storage. Don't you notice I wear the
same thing all the time?
I didn't notice. You cover it well. It's just
too hard to go
in
there and bury my clothes.
Yeah, and I think this really speaks to – you know, I think there are two issues. One is how are we going to respond to the grand jury? That's one. And then two is I agree – I align with you about changing – you know, where can we make amendments in our codes? This isn't going to be the first time that something like this is before us or before this council.
Since the pandemic, we all know we're in a housing crisis and you know as Councilmember Rule said at any time anyone of us could You know, have unfortunate circumstances and the voters elect us. Our constituents build relationships with us. They come to rely on us. You have been serving this community for decades. And so I, you know, I think I would support a motion to really, you know, have staff look at how can we take this – how can we make changes here in Ojai that would protect future council members. and future elective representatives. You know, I think one other thing is that the spirit of the law that we're talking about, the spirit of the law—I'm not one for breaking the law. I'm very like law-abiding. I took an oath to uphold the law, and so I want to state that very clearly And at the same time, the spirit of the law says that these districting was started to prevent discrimination.
To help level the playing field for elected representatives and here we are seeing that it's actually backfiring in our community because we are so small, because we have a housing crisis and so So I and so I'm you know, I would be in favor of Maybe looking at You know we could wait until after June 27th. We could wait we could give you more time we could choose to do nothing at this time and And look at You know what kinds of changes are happening?
on a big picture, or the other option going with option number two. We could make a case to the Attorney General to ... we could fight this. I'm willing to fight. I
would fight it if it didn't cost all that money. Yeah. I'd be concerned about the money. Yeah, but I would love to make a case and be instrumental in changing at the state level.
Just remind her no crosstalk please. Let's can we hear from another council member
yeah, I'll address a few issues so There have been a number of members of the public who are suggesting that somebody on City Council is responsible for making this complaint and I guess my first Susie, you can answer this. I don't think they
said City Council.
Ah, I think they did.
And
I would have a reason to hear that and be quite a bit upset that somebody would tell a lie like that because... Did they really say that? Yes! In fact there's somebody in the audience here tonight who accused my wife of doing that on social media Which is also a lie.
I think we should discuss that you and I, I'd like to meet with you and explain. Just
a reminder this is, one at a time please no
crosstalk. So Sousa you talked about being contacted by the grand jury when was that?
This was in October early October
of 2022
yes
so right before election season Okay. Do you know who made the complaint to the grand jury?
No, they wouldn't tell me. They don't tell... When I started, I got impatient. I had to sign a form that I would never talk about it and then I made the mistake of saying something. I didn't disclose anything, I just said that I was being investigated and I received a cease and desist order You can't talk about it. And I was ordered to delete all comments on social media that even vaguely alluded to the grand jury, which I did immediately and then I gave them... you know, I did everything they asked.
Okay so again I have a few more questions. One of the comments that I've heard tonight more than once is that the city is failing to build affordable housing. And, I have heard staff saying that one we've built a hundred, more than a hundred ADUs in the last three years All of which are considered to be affordable housing in my understanding because that was the justification for changing The laws to make it easier to build ADUs Was because they generated more affordable housing So is that Are we including those 80 use as part of our affordable housing?
Yes, the We get our RHNA allocation, our number from the state of the affordable housing units that we are required to build to essentially do our share of building a certain number of affordable units across the state. That's really what that process is is they give each city a number that they designate as your fair share And so we had consistently reported back to the state that the ADU units that we were approving through sort of proactive encouragement of ADUs was intended to count towards our RHNA allocation and the state did allow those to count towards the RHNA allocations but only at the moderate affordability level, not at the low or very low level. And so in essence, the city's position over the last five plus years has been that that's how we're encouraging housing units to be built in Ojai.
And the state has validated counting the ADUs at moderate income affordability?
Okay and then Whether we've approved or built affordable housing begs the question, what affordable housing projects have been applied for and did we as a city deny those projects? I mean, putting aside the Becker Development Agreement which is pending and there's two sides of the story whether that was a net loss of affordable housing or whether that was an increase in deed-restricted housing.
But putting that aside are there any other projects in the last 30 years that were building primarily affordable housing that this city has refused?
I'm not aware of a deny, I'm not sure about the last 30 years. I can do the last 10 years off the top my head and in those ten years the city has not denied, formally denied any project that had de-restricted affordable housing and the Becker Project is of course pending approval.
And then the only projects that this City Council that's been together for about six months have been asked to approve were Kind of tangentially on the Becker Development Agreement, we were asked... We were required to reconsider the ordinance adopting the Becker Development Agreement because of the referendum. And we voted unanimously to instead of rescinding the ordinance to send it to the voters Which was the only option we had that would keep the project alive, correct?
Yes. With the filing of the certified referendum petition having met the requirements there, the council was required to reconsider it and had two choices. Rescind it or submit it to the voters and the council chose 5-0 to submit it to the voters.
And then when we had We had the, I'll call it the Habitat for Humanity project. We didn't actually vote but conceptually it was a very positive review and everybody on the council expressed their interest in having that move forward Some form and the great likelihood is that will result in? some affordable housing And I think the only real variable is you know, how many how many units will be built?
And then the other Action this is also tangential but you know affordability in general we voted to Adopt Rent stabilization and tenant protections, which are also greatly enhanced housing affordability. So I do not like the fact that we have people repeatedly saying that we're doing nothing when everything we have done has been positive towards affordable housing.
3:14 – 3:205 turns
Mr. Drucker, please no swearing Thank you
I also because this played a prominent role in the Comments from the public, you know there seems to be a dividing line where No criticism of two council members is acceptable, but personal attacks on the other three council members is fine. So there's a double standard when it comes to that and the law they call that an in personam
Said that, but I'm going to ask no comments from the audience.
In the law they call that an in personam attack. That means you're attacking the person instead of addressing the argument that's being presented and we should as a community avoid in personam attacks. I would note that Most of the attacks that I've seen have been directed at our mayor, and I haven't seen anything that had a foundation in those attacks. And this issue that we're addressing does not concern an attack.
It addresses, and nobody here created the fact that the grand jury has issued a report. That is not generated by anybody here on city council. That was started long ago And they've expressed their concern that Mayor Pro Tem Francina is not within our election law. And I believe that we, and there, I think it's would be a mistake to ignore the fact that the grand jury has said that we have a problem And so my suggestion would be, actually I have another question.
If the report proposes two options that would move the issue forward But would not involve us making a decision one way or the other about whether Mayor Pro Tem Francina meets the qualifications of her seat. And those would be, those would involve either ask the Attorney General for an advisory opinion Or direct for the initiation of Quo Warranto, which I've read through the law on Quo Warranto. And my understanding of that is that Quo Warrento is not supposed to be an adversarial type of proceeding. It's supposed to be here's the facts Does this person meet the qualifications of office?
And so my question though is if we direct that, we present something to the district attorney asking for their advice. Would your firm Mr Summers be the firm that would do that or how would that work?
So if the council directs an adversarial process, I would absolutely bring in another, a different firm than myself to handle that because I have to work every day with all five council members and being directly adversarial with one of them would not be helpful in that context when it's about the fundamental reality of being on council or not being on council.
If the council were to do the more generic what is the facts request for an opinion? I'd consult my firm's outside ethics counsel to figure out what the best choice is ethically Under the state bar's rules and regulations, it may well be the same outcome that we bring in another firm to handle that matter. In which case I can recommend a number of very competent firms who would do so efficiently and effectively. And that's not uncommon in this world in that often the contract city attorney will have another firm handle the Colorado proceeding if there is one to be handled.
3:20 – 3:3429 turns
Proceed with looking at how our election laws can be amended in a way that picks up a brat abroad, you know a broad category of persons who are no longer residing in their district through no choice of their own. I would want that any proposal along those lines would include an analysis of our exposure to the type of lawsuit that put us in the position of adopting the laws which have raised this issue.
Yeah, absolutely. As I noted when the question was raised earlier, I'm not aware of any city that has an unhoused person's protection clause for lack of a better phrase. It would seem to be inconsistent with some of the state laws that require maintenance of residency regardless of why. So we may be vulnerable to challenge on that front and if the council directs moving forward, we will absolutely analyze that in close detail what is this... What is the defensibility of that provision?
And can we, on the one hand, ask you to advance the opinion from the Attorney General's office while at the same time look at how our ordinance can be amended. We can do those two things at the same time, correct?
Yeah I think you could do both at the same time in part because if the Attorney General's opinion is consistent with a grand jury's opinion then the seat was vacant sometime in early 2022 and that would be the question that would be answered by that opinion request Amending the law can be done, but that's true going forward And what it's unclear is. What were the facts in the relevant time period?
But yeah both can be done same time
Okay, and so you know with that that I would
I'm not
I'm not gonna make a motion. I'm just gonna I'm just gonna state that my recommendation is that we don't initiate quo warranto, that we do advise the Attorney General of the circumstances and say you know the laws don't clearly address an issue of unintended Unhousing and you know present all the facts and have them tell us Their opinion on You know what the law tells us to do and what we should do as a As the potential for getting a different recommendation than we got from the I Grand jury.
Councilmember rule.
Okay, great. So a couple of points. I appreciate the journey through affordable housing. I will point out that the rescission vote was three to two that you have violated the Brown Act in saying that it was five zero. That having been said because you made that same mistake the last council meeting, the rescission vote was three to two in favor of taking it to vote with Mayor Betsy Sticks and Council Member Andrew Whitman voting To rescind, so let's at least be clear about that. That
is incorrect.
No I don't think so it is
because we voted
on it. That is
incorrect
Let's check on it. Let's just check on it. The second thing I will say is that in termination of residency, section 2-6.107 that we do, I would make an amendment that we do abridge it to take into the account of unhoused people and that we also take into account that there are levels of unhoused I think that that's very important because we've heard over and over and over again, that actually she's not really unhoused because she has a room.
But there are levels of unhoused and we need to take that into account. So I am in favor absolutely of changing the section ordinance that is about the termination of residency. And furthermore, I would state that we try if it is all possible, and this would be a question for city attorney Summers, can we basically make that retroactive? Can we say that given COVID, we didn't understand the ramifications. I mean is there a way to do that because I think that's very important no one understood at the time what they were actually doing and the at risk that we put one of our very you know one of our hollowed Elders who have served in the City Council for so many years. So I think it's very important that we do that as far as should it go to, you know, the Attorney General?
Well sure let's spend some more time and some more money and some more vitriol around all of this or let's put it to rest. The only thing I can say to that that I do agree with is that um and I would ask Mayor pro tem Francina, if you would like to take this battle to the state. And if you would that I would support actually and we haven't actually got to that motion so I'm going to stay, I'm going to stay off of that one. But I think right now the only emotion on the table and you can Let me know if this is correct city attorney that we change the ordinance. The two, the section to dash 6.107 to allow for contingencies of inadvertent homelessness or Excuse me, unhousedness or unshelteredness or however we choose to do with that. So is that the motion and the only motion on the table?
Now I got a little bit lost in our foray into affordable housing and you know who's attacking whom and in rhetoric it's called ad hominem and I have been the source of that Unmercifully in City Council. So to say that it's just one or the other, thank you but no thank you. So that having been said I'd like to put that to rest as irrelevant and talk about what we are here to talk about which is the termination of residency and the plight because of a bad ordinance that a previous city council made not understanding the ramifications of it. That is really where we sit as well as of the matter of unaffordable and no affordable housing, not who got there where we got there how we got there. The fact is, we are there. So if you could give me a little bit of guidance city attorney and what the motion is because I kind of forgot
on the table Councilman rule.
No
one has made a motion
that I will make a motion.
Okay, I'm going to take a turn do you want it. You can go ahead though.
Sure, I'm going to make a motion that we and you can help me. Summers on this particular motion, what it would look like. Basically I want to revise the termination of residency clause in section 2-6.107 to in some way account for the unhoused and the unhomed. So I make a motion that we revise or modify whatever the correct language is section 2- 6.107 to include a contingency and or a change that would make it not a bootable offense, if you become unhoused through no fault of your own. Be you a renter or a homeowner but So I would like that motion and if it can be made retroactive to the date of COVID when the world changed as far as affordable housing and rental stock in Ojai, I think that that would be most appropriate. So that's the motion I would like to make how it is actually worded?
I'm not exactly sure.
It would be a motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance, to come back of course, to revise section 2-6.107 to provide that residency is not lost if a council member is rendered unhoused and will massage the wording precisely due to no fault of their own. The council could try to make it retroactive to the March 17th 2020 statewide COVID shutdown It's not I don't yet have a sense of whether that would survive review, but it certainly the council can write it that way. I would suggest as noted by Councilmember Whitman that we pair a draft ordinance with a detailed analysis of its defensibility.
May I agree? So take that as a friendly amendment or whatever
Is there a second to that motion?
Well, I'd Okay, so i'll make an amendment. Well you want to make your comments? Why don't you make your
comments
and
then uh, well first of all, um, I was just You know, I feel for you susa. I mean it's rough And i'm really sorry that you have been put in this position and I sounds like we have agreement to amend And I think there's conflation of compassion and the law. It stinks, your situation, and I'm really, really sorry about that. On the other hand, it's a legal question in my mind not a question of compassion and It's not about who it's about or what anybody thinks we just we need to follow the rules And we took an oath to follow the rules And I have a high level of respect for our election code, and the law is very clear. We need to follow the law, and to quote Jack Smith, the special counsel, we have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.
Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation—nothing more and nothing less. And I think it's our obligation as a council to uphold the law. So and as James said at the beginning, we are not experts in this area. We are not judges. We have to hold the law regardless of how we feel about it. And I think that is the most important piece of information here, because we're not experts in this area. So yeah, the ordinance very well may need some changing and it sounds like that we are in agreement there.
I think though that it's really important to give it to the Attorney General for an opinion So that we know what to do and so That's all I'm gonna say at this point.
Okay, so I'll make a well, I do want to make a comment that I Don't think we've reached an agreement that we should amend but that we've reached an agreement that we should be presented with The language and the legal analysis that would address a circumstance such as Sousa's. What we end up doing with that is going to depend upon the advice we get on, I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of implications because my understanding is that the law is the way that it is There was a concern for protecting one set of circumstances.
Now, we all agree that Sousa's situation may be an unintended consequence of those laws that were set up but we don't know yet Haven't received the analysis of whether by changing the laws. We undo what we were required to do to avoid that lawsuit, so that's kind of the analysis that I want to hear and so my amendment to the motion would be. If you've got that part, that we also present the issue as a request for an opinion to the Attorney General and that we present that set of circumstances here as objectively as possible.
Thank you. I do not accept that amendment to my motion.
3:34 – 3:4129 turns
I don't want to come back and revisit this endlessly. I would like a motion, I would accept that we take an analysis before we actually vote on the ordinance but to your point while you're doing two things simultaneously, I don't wanna put this off, I don't wanna say we're gonna come back to it, I wanna say that we're gonna change an ordinance that is unfair, that was written without really understanding the way that the world was gonna change so I am not supportive of coming back with an analysis of it without coming back with a change to the ordinance. So my motion stands as is and I think, I'm hoping that we have agreement to change this. I am sure that City Attorney Summers would caution us if there were any red flags immediately that went up.
And I would be willing to take that caution, but I think we need to move forward on this and I don't see any reason to say you know that there's some huge thing that might occur. We wrote this ordinance, we can rewrite it
Councilmember women do you want to make a substitute
motion?
There is no second to the
okay, is there a second to councilmember
I wonder wait hold on.
Is there a second to council member rules motion?
Yes Okay, I second her emotion but I have another question And this could be a friendly amendment or whatever we have 90 days to do this in there's absolutely no reason to take action Tonight, we don't have to you can if your time permits because you're already As far as I know you have many things on your plate This is not so urgent that you have to put other things aside in my opinion. There's no reason that this is Urgent okay That
I'll prioritize as the council directs
Okay, so my suggestion would be or my amendment excuse me would be that I don't know your workload Mr. City Attorney.
We will if the council wants me to move it up we'll move it up worry not about
my workload I have a team
we
won't. I don' t know how the motion maker feels I see no reason to move it up
So my thought was that if we ask the Attorney General for advice, then within that time frame that we have to make a decision, we'll hear the Attorney General's input and then we can also address whether the ordinance needs to be amended or not.
Would you like to make a substitute?
Well, I made the motion and... Okay.
Will you repeat that? It hasn't been seconded. Right, it
was to say you made it as a requested friendly amendment which was rejected by the maker of the motion so you could remake it as a substitute motion which would be voted on first ahead of the main motion as a choice.
Okay. Was Sousa's a substitute motion?
I'm
not entirely, I didn't understand in the end Sousa's comments to be a friendly amendment Okay, okay, but I look to Susan to correct me.
Okay. Well, I don't need to do a friendly amendment I'll leave it up to your judgment as far prioritizing But I just want to make sure that we're not including everything that needs to be done When when I stated that we can do nothing. I didn't mean literally nothing We need to write the letter to the grand jury and We need to acknowledge and we need to include the parts, the letter as we should accept the city attorney's recommendations as to how this letter should be written. I agree with all of the points that he said that we could do and the points that were unclear so the letter should be written. I think we can agree on that right?
That's separate from amending the possibility of amending the municipal code, right? The letter is separate.
As presently structured, yes. As I understood it, you can do it separate or you can do it together. I would like
to do it separate. Council Member Lange? Yes. I just wanted to ask you, just following Council Member Whitman's suggestion that we ask the Attorney General for an opinion, what are your thoughts about how to proceed with that part of this?
The only my only problem with that is it I'm afraid it might trigger the I mean I if we have the money and you guys are cool with spending the it said tens of thousand what was it? You know, I'm concerned. I would love to make a change at the state level. I would love the opportunity to address the Attorney General and make him aware of the unintended consequences but I am very reluctant to spend the money because this law could be changed by other people when they're going to be aware Through the media of the situation here in Ojai and they're going to let other people can also, you know move the move this forward. We don't have to be the ones we could be the ones but I am reluctant to spend the money so I'm not sure that I gave a clear answer but yeah.
And again, we don't have to decide that the money part. We don't have to decide that
okay? So let me
ask council member Lang was gonna finish those just
add one one other question. If we were – first of all, if we were to ask the Attorney General for an opinion and I would only do that if we could in the request submit letters of support, make a case for allowing her to stay here. If we were to go that route, first of all what is the likelihood that the opinion would be something that would be in support? And secondly roughly how much would that financial responsibility be?
3:41 – 3:5040 turns
Second question first, getting it through to an AG opinion not the lawsuit that would follow just zero to an AG opinion I'd estimate two to eight thousand depending on how things go down. How much back and forth there is with the AG if they ask They take in the initial packet and decide on that or do they come back with, well we want more info and several rounds back and forth.
I realize that's a wide range under 10. And then the second question how likely is it the Attorney General opines there may be an issue? That's difficult to predict. It's going to turn in part on whether the Attorney General accepts the distinction that's being drawn between registered to vote at North City at Sigmund Grand and as stated tonight, even staying there versus Is that sufficient to establish residency, even if not desired? But to establish residency at that location in District 3 with no physical presence in District 4 except a temporary presence and the documentary presence of the post office.
I don't know all the facts and I don't have a sense of whether the AG will or will not rule but there's a decent chance that he rules that the seat is vacant.
Okay. And what are the repercussions if we do nothing?
If the council does nothing other than just respond to the grand jury, then the question will turn. The council can't... Is unlikely to be, and there's no guarantees, is unlikely to be subject any sort of lawsuit against the city for not doing anything? There's no obligation to move forward. There's no obligation to file a Colorado action because we don't know all the facts. We have some facts, we don' know all the facts. And the facts
could change tomorrow.
And the facts could change tomorrow so we don''t know all the facts. So there's no likelihood The council being successfully sued for failing to act. The other thing that could occur is if the council takes no action, this is all obviously discussed publicly, any voter in the city could choose to bring the core onto a case forward themselves and that would happen how it would happen. Okay
thank you.
All right we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any motions or should we go ahead and vote on that one?
So what's the motion? Was it mine?
No, well it was Councilmember Rules.
Okay, Councilmember Rules was to...
Do you want
to
repeat
that? Yeah let me, as I understand the motion it was to direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would revise section 26107 to account for unhoused persons who lose residency to no fault of their own, made retroactive to COVID-19's statewide shutdown date paired with a detailed analysis of defensibility of that kind of an ordinance. So if nothing is adopted tonight there's no ordinance being adopted tonight this is direction to return with draft and analysis thereof. Let
me ask you a question why is the COVID part necessary? Why not just keep it real simple and just add two sentences
I think he's trying to advocate for you.
If it's not
made retroactive...
Oh, you mean if it's not retroactive then all the...
If
it is not
retroactive and if the facts are as has been alleged against you then there's a vacancy as of January 2022. Okay. I don't know the facts to be those facts that's uncertain
He didn't explain this, but there's lots of areas in the law where the state has granted exceptions from the normal application of the law because of COVID. In fact, they did something where instead of you have to file your lawsuit within two years of injury, they extended it for a period of time during which we were going through COVID.
Okay I'm sorry I failed to grasp that. Keep it. Okay, all right.
Oh sorry. I was just going to say Council Member Woodman is correct the judicial council order suspended most statute limitations for 11 months there's a whole interlocking patchwork of this is suspended for that long and that's suspended for this long if we were to do a retroactivity clause we'd be trying to tap into that set of law during the states of emergency as were declared in those windows It's unclear in this moment if that will succeed, but that would be the attempt as sought by Council Member Ruhl's motion as you've seconded.
Okay.
Council Member Whitman
and then Council Member Ruhl. Yep, go ahead.
Okay so my substitute motion is that we direct council to bring back proposed language that addresses those potential amendments of our election law and bring back the legal analysis of it, that we also present our request for opinion to the Attorney General But that we create a window of time so that letters of advocacy can be presented and attached in some form to the request for opinion, Well, anybody potentially weighs in and then whoever is handling the request for opinion would either summarize and then attach the actual letters or something like that.
That happens pretty frequently with amicus briefs. So that's my counter motion.
Is there a second to that?
I have a question before I second. Okay, so I just want to run something. I just wanted some clarification on something because I heard you saying that we could do nothing and that the consequences of that would be that member of the public issues a quo warranto. If we I mean, I'm really trying to figure out what is the way that we can most protect you.
Listen, I am happy to buy a camper van and park it in District 4 in order to save the city hundreds of potentially... And the hours of time that we're already spending on this, we have so much work on our It grows day by day. I cannot see adding this as a task, okay? It's going to be the state... The problems will come out whether and we do not need another fight or challenge so I mean, does Leslie's motion include...
Hold on just a second. We're waiting to hear it. Do we have
a second? This is before I make any decision. If we submit a letter to the Attorney General asking for the opinion with supporting documents I mean, we run a risk of the Attorney General saying that this is a violation. But if he comes back and says she can stay, there's enough support for her, then that would make it so that no Citizen could come and issue a court warrant. Oh, is that correct?
Yeah Beginning of the core onto case is required to begin with an attorney general's opinion You can't file a colorado lawsuit without the Attorney General permission so if the city did a an opinion request And the Attorney General issued an opinion that for the reason specified, the seat's not vacant. Then that would block unless the facts change and another request was made and different facts would change it. Assuming the facts don't change, that would block any individual resident from bringing a challenge because they'd have to go to the AG. And if the facts haven't changed, the AG's opinion shouldn't change.
Okay.
Hold on. Is there a second for the motion?
Wait, I want to ask a question that I think is relevant to clarity for you. May I ask? Did you also say that if we do nothing then they cannot file the Coro... No, no, no. A citizen
could only do it... They
can start the process
3:50 – 3:5620 turns
They can ask, anyone can ask the Attorney General for an opinion. Any lawyer can ask the Attorney General for an opinion to start the process. So any resident can hire a lawyer to ask the Attorney General for an opinion to start the process. You can't file a lawsuit without the Attorney General's permission but that first step, any resident cannot have their lawyer ask the Attorney General for permission to start the process.
Does the resident pay for that?
Yes.
Okay so the city doesn't pay
If a resident brings a petition challenging that the seat's vacant, the resident pays their lawyer to challenge the petition. The attorney general is paid by the state's taxpayers. The city would only incur costs if the city chose to file a response or chose to intervene into the process. But the lawsuit is against the person not against the city.
Okay, so there's no need to do this. There's no need to make all this trouble.
Is there a second to the motion? Oh yeah but I just wanted is there a second? Okay go ahead Council Member Ruhl
It occurs to me that I think Council Member Francina, Mayor Pro Tem Francina is correct. There is so much that we need to do. We've been waiting months and months to talk about SB 649 which would give protection to vulnerable tenants Who are at risk of being gentrified we haven't even gotten to that it's been two months on the waiting list do we really want to deal with this endlessly. I think we say that we change the ordinance, to what is right and fair and proper.
And if a citizen so feels like they would like to incur the cost of hiring an attorney to go ahead and start the process, and then we can decide if we want to step in. Then we can decide if there is a pro bono attorney who would like to take on Sousa's case But we need to move on, we have 1000 things much more important than this. It was a wrong that was done with an ordinance.
We can just tell the grand jury, thank you. We understand completely what you have said and we're going to file it. If somebody wants to move it forward let them take the time, let them take the money and we will come back and address it at a different time. I have been waiting two months to talk about We need to get on to stuff that our constituents really care about that can protect them, not this endless you know Okay, so we're gonna incur two to $10,000 but we have consistently underestimated what attorney costs have been.
Consistently like by magnitude. Let's not get involved in this. So I'm gonna make a new motion which is just really simple. We amend the ordinance, we come back We can look at the ramifications, but let's amend the ordinance and move it forward. We've amended four ordinances, you know? And now this is the one we wanna hold on to, the one that we made. We made this one. We can change this one. We made it. We can change it.
Like I said, and let what come come. If somebody wants to sue, Let them incur the expense let us move on to things that really matter to our constituents. So that's my motion. It's a substitute motion it's a substitute motion, let's move on, let's do what we were elected to do.
I just want to make a comment. We were definitely elected to uphold the law, so it makes me uncomfortable when you reference this law stuff or whatever. I'm not sure exactly what you said and we just really need to be clear that this is a legal question. Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second.
I'll also comment that it's not our role to declare a law improper or wrong. We can reconsider. We can look at amendments, but it's a judge who decides whether a law is wrong or not and that is what the process is supposed to do in terms of sending it to the Attorney General And so I would still think that we do have an obligation to uphold the law, but we don't have to say Susan's lost her seat. We can send it to the Attorney General and have the Attorney General tell us what he thinks we should do."
Okay, so are you? There's no. So we're gonna go ahead and vote on Council Member Rollins. Can I have a
comment
Mayor? Excuse me, I have a comment. Hold on one second Mr. Summers.
Just for staffs understanding the motion is to draft an amendment to the ordinance nothing's on the agenda tonight to be adopted that's got to be understood so it's to draft an amendment to the ordinances discussed So that's the same motion as before, as was also seconded. Except now it's dropping the request for an analysis thereof. Is that correct?
No.
OK. Thank you.
It is still in analysis. It is still retroactive. But first of all, we were the ones who wrote that law. So to send it to the attorney general and ask them to interpret it Ching-ching, ching-ching-ching time. We wrote that law, okay? And so we're gonna ask the Attorney General to interpret it for us. We can change the law. We don't need to have the Attorney General interpret it for us, okay? The grand jury gives us the right to do nothing.
That is an option the grand jury has given us which is to file this away I just, how much more time are we going to spend? How much more time? How much more money? Two to $10,000 grossly underestimated potentially because we don't know. So let's just vote on it. Hold on
just a second. Are there any more motions before we vote on this?
Just
one second Susan.
3:56 – 4:0324 turns
No, I think that was the third motion. So okay. All
right I'm no longer afraid of motions now that I watched your City Council meeting with all those motions for an hour your last meeting So okay so what I want to say about upholding the law if you study history and Do you think Rosa Parks felt she was disobeying the law? I mean, look at all the laws that were changed through public protest. If you just start thinking about it what you say is true in many respects about upholding the law. There are absolutely numerous exceptions to upholding wrong laws and this is a wrong law. It doesn't work in reality.
Which is exactly why we're talking about amending it.
So the problem with the analogy is that what Rosa Parks did is take her case to the courts and have the court say this rule Is not constitutional, it violates rights so That, and it's completely wrong to say that the Attorney General's role is not to give advice to government about how the law applies.
I'm not saying that the Attorney General's role is not as you characterize it. I am saying we don't have time for this. We don't have the money. And Rosa Parks didn't wait for the law to change before she took her seat. She didn't wait! And if she hadn't taken her seat, that law wouldn't... Things will get changed just through our actions and our advocacy tonight. Things will get changed. We're initiating change.
Councilmember Lange.
Yes,
so if we have you draft language to change the ordinance and we make it retroactive then we could revisit how we respond to the grand jury letter after that correct?
Yeah, the council could await until August 12th Adopting the ordinance may not be effective yet given the referendum period but the council could certainly we can bring back a Language next time and then the council would consider the language together with what to do about the grand jury response At the next meeting would be an option.
Thank you, because I would I would be in favor of giving as much time as possible before we present this to the Attorney General or do make any do anything and I would be in favor for going as far as we can, responding to the grand jury letter but taking no action until after we know what the outcome of the June 27th court hearing is and after we change our ordinance.
So no opinion at this point. Yeah, okay. All right, Council Member Ruhl?
I just wanted to say that Rachel, I agree with you completely. I would move to continue the issue of responding to the grand jury or sending anything to the DA until after the Santa Monica decision if there is one So we could continue this till then, till we have a better sense of the information that we're actually working with. And I think that is the most prudent step because it also doesn't commit us to time energy money and a potential path that we can't rein in so thank you for that.
Just just to clarify Mr. Summers that we might not know until September didn't you say that?
Yeah, I mean the court's hearing is set for June 27th. They'll have if they submit it that day they have 90 days to respond that deadline runs end of September but i don't know when they're going to issue their ruling we may or may not have the ruling before August 12th one option if the council wants to push it Push the formal response to the grand jury would be to write a one-page response that says we received your report, we file it.
Any substantive response we defer until after the Supreme Court gives us an answer and just do that. The grand jury may not care for it but that's their problem. That'd be a choice.
I need clarification because the thought that you already basically wrote a letter to the grand jury, that to me was separate from amending
the- It is separate and we did draft a letter but it needs council approval before we send it.
Well after we get through this part, I'll be making... I was planning to make a motion to approve it.
Okay, that's a choice too. Council Member Rule just mentioned making a motion to continue that discussion until next time.
Yeah, I was just trying to figure out What would be, if we can get more information from the Supreme Court ruling, the California Supreme Court ruling then that would be a good piece of information to have. And so if we can, I mean, we have a certain time window that we can push it to without a problem but yes, we could also respond to the grand jury saying that we are in process of gathering more information there's a huge case that has relevance to this, we would like to wait for that I mean, I can't see that they wouldn't agree to that. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. So once again, we're now living
in a world- Well,
we
have a motion and we have a second. Can we have roll call please Weston?
Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Francina.
Yes. This is on Leslie's motion correct?
Roll-call vote 2–2 motion. · 1 under review
Show transcript
4:03 – 4:1044 turns
Okay, all right motion passes Thank you very much. We will move on Sorry
Keep things moving yeah I would like to make a motion that we give staff permission to send the letter as written and if if you want to mention add to this a mention of the case that's happening on June 27 you can add a paragraph about that and And do we need to see that? I mean, to me all the information is here and I thought it was fantastic how you handled it.
I think my initial response, so I think in our statement we're saying that we are going to do some things that we've now said we aren't
decided yet to do. The key there is we've stated that we would consider whether to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General. Yeah, consider. Considering it as not doing it. So
yeah.
I think we're okay that it wouldn't, because we do not want to send the grand jury something we know is false. But agreeing that we will consider it means we'll consider it, not necessarily that we'd do it. So I think we're okay on
that front. Yeah if you see anything that's not okay, I would leave it up to your good judgment to tweak the language But I'd love to get this done and not, you know. My daughter and I have talked about this so much that we think that the kids aren't listening when they call us the Grand Council because they can't separate. Oh Susan
what are you going to be done with the Grand Council? So you made a motion is there second to Mayor Pro Tem's motion?
I'll second it.
Okay roll call please Weston
Yes, motion as I understand it to submit the letter to the grand jury as written including adding a paragraph about the June 27th case. Is that correct?
As written, unless our city attorney needs to tweak a word to make sure that it's all honest words like consider if it needs. If it's missing, you know?
Yeah, we'll sit with it closely. Thank you for the
I have a brief clarification. Yes, I'm
sorry.
Sorry are we going to add the point that we will can? Are we going to add anything about wanting potentially wait out a Supreme Court decision or are we not going to? I'm just asking. I mean, I think that it adds credence to our consideration of considering.
Yes. I understood that yes the directive, the motion from Member Demfrancino was to add language regarding the state Supreme Court
decision. Use the word pending you know. Thank you. Thank you.
Understood.
Okay roll call please Weston.
Roll-call vote 2–2 motion from Member Demfrancino was to add language regarding the state Supreme Court decision. Use the word pending you know. Thank you. Tha · 1 under review
Show transcript
Motion passes.
Okay, all right thank you very much appreciate it
we will move on to item number three oh actually we have public communication remained or we have one card from Klaus Peter.
Klaus Peter has left he told me okay
anybody online Weston?
We have one raised hand on zoom Sue Williamson. Sue you have the floor
And just a reminder, Sue, this is general public comment.
I think she already commented on general public comment.
She spoke! She spoke! Sue spoke!
It's a new raised hand and we'll give her one option. Sue you have the last call to speak?
She did
speak.
Okay,
yeah. Yeah she already spoke during general public comment.
Okay all right
we will move on to item number three um what yep?
I was just note in terms of mechanics with the directive we will prepare and send out the letter to the grand jury in the next day or two and then we'll bring forward in due course with the supreme court's decision in hand a draft ordinance which uh given that the Ruling will be the argument is the morning of the 27th. It won't be on the 27th agenda We'll wait for that to come in
So you'll bring it back after
this?
Yeah, okay wonderful
Thank You Matt
all right Let's move on to item number three consideration of adoption of a resolution Of the City Council responding to the letter from the DA with an unconditional cease and desist from Brown Act violations Is there a staff report they're
very very briefly as we discussed this one at length that our transparency workshop on In May. I forget the date, no June last time. The process before us is the district attorney has sent an unconditional commitment demand letter articulating for allegations of Brown Act violations. The request is to adopt an unconditional commitment that the city will maintain compliance with the Brown Act and in so doing If the city chooses to adopt the commitment, it does not include any admission. It's a we admit nothing, deny everything, admit nothing but adopt the commitment that the city will definitively comply with the Brown Act including is narrowly read by the district attorney And if it's adopted, it protects the city from lawsuits against the city that seek to determine the applicability of the Brown Act to those past actions if brought under Government Code Section 54960.2.
Options are to adopt a commitment as drafted in the staff report, adopted with modifications as may be desired, adopted in part as to some but not all of the alleged violations, take no action, do nothing or decline to issue the commitment The deadline is tomorrow, June 14th 2023. That's a statutory deadline there's little room to negotiate and the staff would recommend adopting the commitment as drafted because it does not require that anybody admit any violations and it allows the city to prevent litigation by the district attorney on these past actions and thus to look to the future.
As discussed at length of the transparency workshop, staff has already identified a number of tools to put in place regarding the closed session agenda descriptions. While we disagree as noted in my lengthy memo, we disagree with the district attorney's assessment of it. I recognize that he has more power than I Therefore, we will be very robust in closed session agenda descriptions and narrow in discussions and narrow in topics.
And we'll as also discussed, be robust in closed session reporting to further above and beyond the bare minimums of the law promote transparency. in what the council is doing behind closed doors. Last, I will note that the district attorney has dropped the request to record closed sessions as somebody mentioned earlier and simply shifted it to be the unconditional commitment process.
So with that staff would recommend adopting the commitment and of course take questions public comment and then action is desired.
Thanks Matt any questions from council? Council Member Ruehl you have a question
4:10 – 4:166 turns
No, I don't. Sorry, I forgot to take my hand raised down. I apologize.
Okay no questions we will move on to public comment first we have Larry Steingold then Bill Miley and then Dee Reed
Good evening Larry Steingold Ojai resident The fact that no admission of guilt, the public wasn't born at midnight. Actually we were born at night but not at midnight so Mr. Summers it's your job to write the agenda and police them and make sure that they don't veer off the track But obviously that was not the case because Mr. Whitman at the workshop, or maybe it was at the meeting, threw you under the bus at least once, maybe twice, maybe three times.
So it's your job to police them, but obviously didn't. So when they do have the next closed session if they do veer off the path I assume you have to tell him hey you're veering off the path because if you continue I'm going to have to tell the DA because if you don't tell the DA one of them is gonna have to snitch or narc or whatever you want to call it so that's your job Mr. Whitman who was a well-versed attorney, and obviously well trained in defense and litigation because he's a litigator or was a defense attorney.
Defending nursing homes which really got me going because you're defending nursing homes to avoid micro issues and other issues whatever. And you mentioned that they don't have to keep evidence of recordings Why? Because it chills conversations. It chills investigations, your own words. But it keeps them honest. If you have the agenda and this is the track, you stay on the agenda. When you go to a deposition, you tell your client yes, no, stay on track, don't veer off, don�t say this, don�t say that, just answer the question. When you have an agenda, you stay on the track. The meetings will be quick, they'll be efficient Record the agenda and do a video of it. I know this DA backed off because somebody must have gotten to him, because that's what normally happens Okay, somebody talked to him and said hey you make them record they can't talk about other things We've all been in board meetings and we all talk about other things but in this case here's the law Oh, it's an act maybe it's not whatever It's the Brown Act Just stay, record it.
Do the audio. Do the visual. What are you afraid of? Veering talking about things? You talked about the last vote. You talked about the judge declares what the law is but you mentioned steering. Oh what if you go to a friendly judge? Those are your own words, a friendly judge. That a developer might go to a friendly judge and get them to show off all the things that go in secret. I implore you, the amount of trust in this town is at an all time low, and I've only been here six years, okay? And this is horrible.
Thank you. Thank you Larry. Next we have Bill Miley then Dee Reed then Jeffrey Starkweather.
Good evening. Certainly the City Council should convince the County District Attorney that it will continue to operate within the California Brown Act. However, the council needs in my opinion to sharpen closed session agendas and their application and audio record all closed sessions As I view this issue, the key item which drives this correspondence is the hiring of an outside council to advise the City Council on defending the city against a lawsuit over the Becker Project and how that happened.
How this was done was not the best way for public trust. Surprisingly, the current city attorney stating he does not have legal background to properly advise on his own really surprised me. I choose to believe the closed session council meeting during which this was discussed was improperly agendized. Not surprisingly, the city's third attorney says it was okay.
But he's lost my confidence as he's not able to protect our city without help. And city attorneys can be wrong. Public trust and transparency is the goal here, and it suffered. A further example is the cost of outside council remains sacred to many of us until it was placed on the consent calendar of a recent City Council meeting Having to hire extra legal counsel for a real estate deal, which is part of the reason you have closed sessions because the current city attorney states it's beyond his background knowledge.
As I understand what he said is damaging to our government $29,000 worth I would suggest this council reevaluate the current city attorney and his function for future city governance. Thank you.
Thank you, Bill. Next we have Dee Reed then Jeffrey Starkweather then John Drucker
4:16 – 4:224 turns
I'm especially glad to see a recommendation on the agenda for you to make an unconditional commitment to obeying the law, the Brown Act upholding the law. Seems like a no-brainer so I hope that goes through but that's an important first step in rebuilding public trust that I think we've all talked about tonight it's really important to do But I feel the need for a second step to carry that further, and that is to find a way to record and securely maintain a transcript of any future closed-door sessions. Legal closed-door sessions, of course.
I know that I've heard concerns, I think from Councilmember Lange we talked about this, about how easy it is to hack into technology and if you have things online they can do horrible things with it. But I think you can record your meetings For heaven's sakes, don't put them online but record them on some kind of a hard drive and then get a transcript. And put that on paper old school and lock that up okay it never comes out unless there's litigation or some kind of challenge to your closed sessions I suppose but mostly it's for litigation and if you have a litigation and you don't have a record You're all going to get deposed. It's going to cost a fortune to defend a case if you don't have a record, so that's that's a good reason to do it.
I think there's other municipalities are doing it not everyone's doing it but lots of municipalities are doing it for that reason and also, so there's a couple of reasons. It protects you in case of litigation, I just said that. It also helps just to hold you accountable. You know, you say you're going to be transparent and if you're recording your session, you're not hiding anything. There is going to be a record. We're not going to see it unless there's litigation but we know that you had the intent for it to be held until you didn't need it any longer.
And then finally, when one knows one words are being recorded you just behave differently. You know it's like when you're in public you try to be professional and kind and all that stuff to each other and when you're in private there's a temptation to just relax and slide into casual conversation and maybe sometimes not good conversation so if you know you're being recorded you're going to be professional respectful accurate because it's going to be recorded And finally, having a record communicates to your constituents what you are trying to do with your commitment to the Brown Act.
That is that you have a serious commitment to transparency. Not having a record raises questions. What are they afraid of? Why wouldn't you have a record? And I don't have a good answer for that. I don't think there's any good reason not to have a record, so I really urge you to reconsider that. I mentioned it at the last meeting but I didn't get any attention to it and would love to see it happen as an important second step to your commitment to transparency. Thank you.
Thank you Dee. Next we have Jeffrey Starkweather then John Drucker then Robin Gerber
Good evening. Jeffrey Starkwerther, I'm speaking on behalf of the Ojai Valley Democratic Club. It is our view that we agree you should sign the unconditional commitment to follow the Brown Act but in addition We request that the city council take action to make sound and video recordings of any closed door sessions. And then, excuse me, and to make those recordings or transcripts available to the district attorney or grand jury upon their request.
Moreover, recording should be Only released to the public when they are no longer frustrate the purpose of the closed session. And, of course, they could be subpoenaed by a court in a litigation challenge but that would save the city a lot of money not having to do all depositions which you'd obviously have to depose everybody in the meeting if you were doing a court case.
The proposed commitment to follow the Brown Act Is being requested by the DA based on findings that the City Council held illegal closed door meetings during this new board's first three meetings. The majority of the city council and our city attorney has so far refused to admit they violated the Brown Act, so how can we be assured that you're going to follow something that you don't even admit that you broke the act in the first place?
Making recordings of closed-door sessions is the only vehicle citizens have to motivate the City Council to follow the Brown Act in the future and to hold them accountable if they fail to do that. It's not some radical proposal. We had these same provisions in a North Carolina Public Meetings Act, and by the way, the County of Los Angeles records their meetings In terms of when recordings or transcripts of those recordings could be released to the public and local governments learn to live with that.
It actually helped them make more, be more vigilant in keeping their closed-door sessions to the matters for which the closed door meetings have been announced in their meeting agenda so thank you.
Thank You Jeffrey next we have John Drucker then Robin Gerber
4:22 – 4:284 turns
Good evening again. I'm Leslie Ruhl's lawyer, as you know, but I speak for myself only because I haven't had a chance to speak with her. I'd like to discuss my view on how you should approach the DA's cease and desist letter. First, as the name of the letter indicates, the DA is requesting that you cease and desist from violating the Brown Act any further. The section, and this is because of the language in his language you exceeded the scope of your closed session.
You see he said that because government code section 54963B provides that for a closed session communication to be confidential The communication must be quote, specifically related close quote to the basis for this session namely the closed session statement. Now Rachel I'll address you for a moment because you have expressed heartfelt feelings that your confidence was breached by these disclosures and I understand those feelings because when you go behind closed doors especially for a closed session it's only natural to assume that everything is confidential But that definition, as I provided a moment ago, is not the legal definition of the word confidential under the Brown Act. And that distinction is crucial.
The plain language of the statute says confidential communications had to be specifically related to the litigation of simply Ojai versus the city of Ojai. That did not include things like hiring a new law firm, potential lawsuits Policy decisions to make after the City Council rescinds the development agreement, the Mayor's conflicts of interest, Mr. Whitman's vulgar verbal attacks on Susan and Leslie nor the mayor's admission that the firm you hired to advise the city and ultimately paid $30,000 to was chosen by her friend Sabrina Venskis, a lawyer who is prosecuting the case against the city.
Now Mr. Summers takes a completely contrary position Both the DA and I think that Mr. Summers' position is frivolous. Plus, consider that Mr. Summers was the one who created your closed session statement and whose job it was to police the discussion so it stayed quote specifically related to the Simply Ojai litigation. And Mr. Summers failed at that job. So he has quite a conflict of interest here. So take his advice with a major grain of salt But if you accept Mr. Summers position, at least and you don't think that you did anything wrong, at least have the integrity to vote consistently with that view and vote no.
On this motion to adopt the DA's cease and desist demand. Don't cop out by adopting this double speak proposed by Mr. Summers. We did nothing wrong, but we'll never do it again. Thank you.
Thank you John. Next we have Robin Gerber.
An unconditional agreement to cease and desist is appropriate, but rejecting the DA as wrong is
He's the highest level authority in the county, unlike the grand jury which has no authority other than to issue reports and be watchdogs. He can go to court and enforce his orders. You just rhapsodized about the importance of the law mayor. And yet you're willing to support this statement that the DA is wrong? I don't see the consistency here. In fact, it feels like hypocrisy especially if you just voted against changing a law to make it better After saying that you felt so sorry for Sousa. So really your relationship with the law, I don't understand.
Believing in the law means believing in the DA as Mr. Summers said he is a more powerful attorney than our city attorney. He is the attorney for the whole county and it means creating a strong code of conduct also You know, you could start by just coming clean. Andy really how hard would it be to say that you're sorry for your conduct in that closed session? I mean, you just talked earlier in this meeting about feeling bad about having ad hominem attacks against you And yet that's what you did. It's okay, we all make mistakes. Just say you're sorry.
Betsy hiding behind the closed session to not just tell us what happened between you and Sabrina and finding Heather Minner is just wrong. And letting other people like Sabrina Venskus who's suing us speak on your behalf does not create the kind of trust that we need. If you could just clean the slate, we can have a code of conduct that could be written from a place of honesty and goodwill and I know I've heard you talk about that Betsy, and I think you do believe in it.
Stop playing any of the Trumpist whataboutism cards. Really, we don't need to hear any more of that. I hope we can all agree on that. All of you need to admit your imperfections. No one in this council is without problems and issues and personality stuff but I do believe that you can work together as a team for the good of the city and I hope you will. Thank you.
4:28 – 4:486 turns
Thank you. Any comments online, Weston?
No raised hands, Mayor.
Okay we will move on to discussion then. Would anyone like to begin?
Yeah I will. So Matt, Mr. Summers has anything that you've heard changed your mind about your advice that we not record closed session?
No, I still recommend not recording closed sessions for two reasons. One, the district attorney has dropped the request. I think recognizing in part that he has no power to force the council to record closed sessions absent a court order to do so and second that the goal of rebuilding public trust can be accomplished another more effective way because recording closed sessions doesn't do anything about public trust unless those recordings are leaked or are voluntarily given to the community which would prejudice the interest of the city regarding any matter that's not yet resolved and likelihood of any matter that's in community conversation is not yet resolved. So recording closed sessions is effectively eliminating closed sessions. The public transparency goals can probably be more effectively met through robust agendas up front, and robust reporting out on the back end.
And second as noted previously, recording closed sessions may well chill a closed session discussion The Brown Act allows for closed sessions for a reason, to discuss litigation where someone is suing the city, to discuss hiring a new city manager as may come up in the future. To discuss real estate negotiations when we're buying property and you wouldn't want to say your maximum price to the person from whom you're buying the property because they're now going to understand exactly where to go The reason the law allows for closed sessions and those reasons are not promoted by having recordings that could be used adversely to the city. And the other thing I would note is that, if I could take the microphone while I have it, I never stated that I was not qualified to provide advice.
The request regarding outside council came from new council members regarding a different perspective. I have never said I'm not qualified.
I agree with that statement. So Anne Revelle, who is the former director of the Fair Political Practices Commission... Okay, I'll get it straight eventually. Ann Revell who's the director of the Fair Political Practices Commission and spoke to us at our transparency workshop advised that we should not record our closed sessions. I'm going to go with the advice of the public meeting lawyer expert that we've retained on behalf of the city and as well as Ann Revell with respect to the issue of whether we should be recording closed session.
So I have a big problem. Maybe, you know for the first time in my experience, I agree with Mr Drucker and that the idea of signing a document that says I agree to cease and desist. Something that I never did is not something that I am comfortable with signing. I have concerns that the conduct, District Attorney is addressing in the first three out of four matters that he addressed are Relate to how the creation of language for the agenda items for closed session and those were not performed by the City Council members.
In fact, most of us were not well yet most of us were not even city council members when the original notice was drafted Another problem that I have with the DA's statement to us is that it misses facts that are important to why the closed session were properly noticed in the conversations that took place. closed session were properly noticed. And some of those facts include that the Simply Ojai pending litigation challenged the legality of an ordinance that was previously adopted by City Council, that's the ordinance that we were The lawsuit that we were there to address.
And it, that result, that ordinance resulted in a development agreement that we generally refer to as the Becker Development Agreement or the yeah, the Becker Development Agreement. That in addition to naming the city of Ojai and the City Council as defendants, this simply Ojai lawsuit named the developers of that Becker development grant as parties to that litigation, as real parties in interest. That the scope of the Simply Ojai lawsuit pending litigation included the developer's right to defend the ordinance to say that it was legal, complied with laws that were being challenged By the simply oh, I lawsuit that during public hearings preceding the adoption of the ordinance before three of us were involved.
The developer repeatedly threatened the city with litigation, including litigation concerning the legality of the city's ordinances that were part of those issues as raised by the Simply Ojai lawsuit. Some members of the City Council cited the developers' threat of litigation as a basis for their approval of the development agreement That the city attorney and not the City Council formulated the language for closed session number one on December 13th, 2022. That the city attorney and not the City Council determined that during closed session number one it was appropriate and consistent with the Brown Act to discuss a referendum that challenged the ordinance.
That the city attorney and not the City Council advised that the referendum required that the City Council reconsider the ordinance and determine whether the ordinance should be rescinded. That's from California Election Code, which says When a petition protesting the adoption of an ordinance gathers a sufficient number of signatures from city voters, then one, the effective date of the ordinance is suspended.
And two, in other words, the Becker Development Agreement was legally suspended when they gathered sufficient number of signatures. And number two, the City Council shall reconsider the ordinance. I read in the district attorney's comments at least the implication that we weren't supposed to be talking about a decision that had already been vetted, except for the law told us we had to discuss a decision that had already been vetted.
The developers' threats of litigation would be impacted by the city's council The City Council's vote on the referendum. Likewise, the Simply Ojai lawsuit was impacted by the city council's vote on the referendum that more than one city council member requested advice from independent legal counsel concerning the scope and extent of litigation risks that we would face depending upon our decision on the referendum That the city attorney did not, excuse me.
Advice from independent legal counsel was proposed not because Mr. Summers was not qualified but because he had potential conflicts of interest Given that he was previously involved in the negotiations with the developer that led to the adoption of the ordinance. And included the likelihood that the city attorney would become a fact witness in litigation if the developer carried through on his threats of litigation. I'm not going to say a lot about this, but those are circumstances that attorneys are told to avoid.
And and so there was no objection from the city attorney when we suggested that we needed independent counsel because he would be at least viewed as having a conflict of interest, and now advising us about the referendum and how we should vote on it or what the risks associated with that were. So this... The city attorney did not advise the City Council that it could not discuss retention of independent legal counsel or should convene an additional closed session meeting to discuss whether to retain independent counsel.
The city attorney Has advised the City Council that discussion of all of this stuff that I've just talked about During closed session was adequately noticed and complied with the Brown Act because the discussion was within the safe harbor law and Reasonably related to the resolution of the simply. Ojai versus city of Ojai lawsuit The agendas for numbers For session closed sessions numbers two and three on January 9th and January 10th We're also prepared by the city attorney and not the City Council as with closed session Number one, the city attorney intended that the scope of the agenda language concerning closed session number two and three would comply with a Brown Act. And he and the city attorney did make one addition to the notification for closed session.
And that was to add the fact that the three different developer groups were parties to the Simply Ojai lawsuit As with closed session number one once discussion during closed session number two and closed session number three began City Council members relied on the city attorney to Make legal determinations whether Discussions exceeded the scope of the agenda that he had prepared for the meeting to assure compliance with the Brown Act I So with the notable exception of legal advice concerning the existence of the threat of litigation, advice concerning existing or threatened litigation. Had the city attorney advised the City Council that the public needed to receive additional information concerning any of the matters discussed by the City Council, we would have approved that notification or we would have approved of giving additional notification.
The City Council held a public hearing at which public comments were taken, and the City Council discussed and voted on the reconsideration of the ordinance as required under California Election Code Section 9237 in open in front of the public with the ability to event every possible contingency of what was going on with that decision. The City Council voted unanimously 5-0 to allow the voters to determine the outcome of the ordinance, with three council members voting for the referendum to be on March 2024 ballot and two council members voting for the referendum to be on the November 2024 ballot.
With the inclusion of all of those facts, I don't think that the district attorney would hold the same view. And I asked for the opportunity to present information to the district attorney and that was declined. And so I've taken this opportunity to state The information that I would have wanted to impart to him. To make him understand that all of these issues that we were discussing were part and parcel of the Simply Ojai lawsuit, which raised a challenge to that ordinance. That is, we know as the Becker Development Agreement.
And we discussed that as we should. We looked at the risks to the public, Depending upon what outcome You know what we voted for in our City Council deliberations and that was an appropriate thing for us to do and it was completely covered by the Brown Act and I will So With that being said, I do not feel that I can sign the cease and desist letter. And it's not because I'm not committed to protecting, supporting the Brown Act and advancing the Brown Act and to providing the public with as much information as is required of the Brown Act but I'm going to continue to rely upon my city attorney to give me advice as to when we should, what we can discuss and when we should discuss. And that's what we've done and that's what we're going to continue to do so I would not oppose the city attorney drafting something to say what he kind of said in his opening comments or is his discussion in terms of what he intends to do, in terms of tools to make a fuller disclosure.
With respect to the fourth item in the cease and desist letter. I have a real problem with the idea that I'm going to commit. To something that you know? Yeah, so the cease and desist letter is kind of confusing because. So it's referred to as section I. Period D. And it is referred to in the city attorney's resolution as number four, but that refers to the conduct of council member rule in disclosing confidential information obtained in closed session.
District attorney found that that information was confidential and there was no exception which allowed disclosure. And so I cannot, and since he has made those findings, council member Rule has asserted She did nothing wrong and that the district attorney in her opinion has justified her disclosure. She's not a whistleblower, she made significant disclosures to people other than the district attorney prior to making the disclosure to the district People who did not have a right to obtain that confidential information.
She was advised by the city attorney, my understanding is that she was advised by the city attorney before that public hearing when she made the disclosures that she should not make those disclosures, they would violate the law That at the City Council meeting, it was very apparent that the city attorney was advising that those disclosures should not be made.
And council member Rule then made a motion to the city council members that she'd be allowed to disclose that information and she got no support for that motion. And then she went ahead and disclosed it anyways. So I don't, I cannot under those circumstances make an unconditional commitment that she's not going to repeat her acts. I think she's made every indication that she's gonna conduct herself however the hell she wants.
Sorry for my curse word, but so those are the end of my comments. I'm not inclined to sign unconditional commitment as it's been phrased by the district attorney. If he wants to, you know, review my comments and come back with a different version or statement I'd be happy to consider signing that and I am fully committed to complying with the Brown Act and will do so to the best of my ability
4:48 – 4:5813 turns
Council member rule.
You know, I'm perfectly happy to let someone else go but you know, I just wanted to counter Andrew councilmember Whitman's once again accusations about you know what was disclosed when it was disclosed how it was disclosed according to you guys nobody has wanted to talk about what happened in those closed sessions. And now here we have a full disclosure, and it comes right down to I was all on board until Betsy you told us that your recommendation came for Sabrina Vinskus. That was the end of it from an attorney that was suing us on exactly that matter. That was the only thing I felt needed to be disclosed. And I thought that was really important. You and I, we were best friends for two days until our first closed session where I felt like you gamed me totally.
You didn't say you got your recommendation from Sabrina Vinskus who was suing us on exactly that matter. You said you wanted a new pair of eyes. On the development agreement. That's what you said, I did not in any way say anything to the DA that wasn't true and the reason I disclosed it was because that was an immense Call it a mistake, call it whatever you want. Sabrina Vinskus is being investigated by the California State Bar for exactly that action. You can't do that and Councilman Whitman, you're an attorney for God's sakes, you know you can't do that. So all that being said, Yeah, you know and at least I never hid what I did. At least I was straightforward and I said what I had to say and I did what I had to do. You know, I never hid behind closed door session can't talk about it.
You could always have said it wasn't true You don't have to say, you only have to say if it was true. You could've said no none of that was true because all of it was true, all of it was true. You brought us a recommendation for an attorney's firm from the attorney that was suing us who is one of your best friends so I don't know what else to say. I have fully committed to the district attorney that I will not disclose. That was a horrible three sessions, our first three sessions and immediately after that first session Betsy you and I talked about behavioral and communication norms that would need to be in place. I said I had no desire to publicly shame Councilman Whitman until things went even worse. So you know I've wanted to talk about this, I've wanted people to agree to open up the closed session and you know I guess now Councilman Whitman didn't feel the need to ask the rest of the team to uh the rest of the council to open that up.
I have always- I didn't
disclose any confidential legal advice which i cannot say about you
Okay, well you don't have to say it about me. The point is that we need to decide if we are going to fully commit to not breaking the Brown Act again and here's the thing about the Brown Act because the district attorney deemed it out of scope It was no longer confidential. What he said was that I did not have the right to make that determination unilaterally, he had the right to make that determination and he didn't make that determination. And so there it goes, I never said I was correct in doing it, I said I did it at the wrong time in the wrong way.
But, you know, we were on the hook for a half-a-million dollar lawsuit. Things were moving really quickly. We were going back into closed session like that to change our minds. So I felt to protect the city, I needed to move quickly so I did what I did. That having been said, I have made an absolute commitment to the district attorney not to do it again and I can say that You know, I don't have a problem making that full and absolute commitment to not doing it again.
If this council would make a full and absolute commitment to tell the darn truth and not omit things but thank you.
I have just a couple of corrections councilmember rule. I have only told the truth And I told you the truth and Just reminder it is illegal to or we took an oath not to discuss closed sessions, and I am following that Anne Ravel who was a Berkeley professor on the Brown Act made it very clear that I just want to say that this council, including me, we didn't do anything wrong.
Please don't interrupt me. She's an expert in her field. And I would just like to read one quotation from Matt's memo and I really appreciate you, Thank you. A sane voice. Matt wrote, the council's discussion of the lawsuit its subject and the development agreement and a path to end the lawsuit via the referendum on the same subject, the development agreement, and what consequences might follow if that option were not to be exercised was lawful. And I agree with Councilmember Whitman's assertion that the DA only spoke We got one story, did not talk to any of us about what happened.
So that to me does not seem like a complete investigation. And yes, if I think Sue Williamson said we all make mistakes and we would do things differently. We learn from experience clearly. On apprendo means I am still learning and If I were looking for another lawyer, I would go straight to U.S. News and World Report, best attorneys in California – best law firms in California for – can you put your hand down so it becomes more real? I'm still talking.
And I would get the same exact excellent result that we got. They're one of the best law firms in California in terms of land use. Talk to any lawyer, I believe Mr. Summers you had some, you knew them? You know, I mean-
I interned for them in law school. They're a good firm. Right.
Yeah, great firm and we got excellent advice. And my goal is to protect the city and do the best thing for the city. And it has been from the day I took office, and it continues to be that every day. It's also very clear that... I don't think we should sign this. As a council, when only one council member broke the Brown Act. When only one council member went against the advice of the city attorney and the city manager very clearly and went rogue and did whatever she wanted. And that's what happened.
You know, here we are. I don't think it's a good idea for this council to sign that because we did not... Excuse me. Do you mind? We didn't break the Brown Act. We didn't do it so I don' t see why we would possibly sign this. Only one council member broke the Brown Act
May I ask, would any of this be happening if this new council wasn't committed to overturning the previous council's decision regarding the Becker Agreement? We wouldn't be having these late night sessions and just going over this stuff over and over. So
Susie you're violating the Brown Act by saying what that attorney advised us. You're also violating attorney-client privilege We are not ever supposed to talk about advice that we got confidentially from an attorney.
Do
you agree with that conversation?
I did not get this advice from anybody. This is my own observation. I have nothing to do with any attorney. My observation is that if you did not want to overturn, the whole public and the whole world knows that you want to overturn the development agreement that the previous council approved. We wouldn't be having these closed sessions and
expenses and it's just it's like a never-ending bad dream for me councilmember Lang
4:58 – 5:1348 turns
If I could, the whole reason why we went into closed session was because of response to a referendum. I don't think it's about the council, at least I can speak for myself that it's not about the council wanting to overturn. It's dealing
with
the legislative
issues. The decisions were made by a previous council. We didn't have to touch it. We could be talking about productive things that need to get done.
Yeah, I
agree
But we did have to talk about the legal matters pertain related to it So
right the council was required to consider the litigation against the city and challenging the development agreements approval And to consider the referendum also challenging the development agreement's approval. Those two had to be considered and as noted in the lengthy memo were lawfully considered together because they're part and parcel of the litigation. The referendum was a way to moot the litigation Considering the referendum was a way to consider mooting the litigation.
I'm gonna hold my tongue, but I know what's going on Okay,
and I see a council member hand is there a motion be that we want to put on the table?
Actually wanted to make you know one more comment and that is that And I'll defer to a legal expert and that does not include mr. Drucker but My understanding is that attorney-client confidence is not abrogated by the Brown Act, that there is a Supreme Court decision that says that the Brown Act does not eliminate attorney-client privilege, that there was not sufficient Communication of intent to abrogate attorney-client privilege and that the idea that you argue that a discussion with an attorney is outside of the four corners of the notification does not make those communications suddenly not
confidential. That's correct. The Brown Act and Roberts v. Palmdale is a case regarding written memorandum from a city attorney or, in that case, city attorney or county council to a board That's protected and subsequent cases have confirmed that the attorney-client privilege protects discussions in a closed session. The closed session may well be held by a judge to have been unlawful, and that's a violation of the Brown Act if affirmed by final non-appealable ruling of a judge with competent jurisdiction. But the fact that a closed session may have violated the Brown Act does not abrogate the attorney-client privilege regarding those discussions. It's a separate analysis It was a, if found so found would have been an unlawful closed session and you deal with the consequences thereof but it doesn't abrogate the privilege.
And the district attorney in part affirms that in his statements he obviously included the closed sessions in his opinion were unlawful but he also concluded the disclosures were also unlawful.
I have a couple of things. First of all, you know, I've heard it a couple of times in public comments over the course of this whole matter and that somehow Mr. Summers, our city attorney didn't do his job well, and I just want for the record to say that I don't want you to be the scapegoat for this. And that I trust you, I trust your judgment. Anyone who hears you speak at our council meetings know that you know the law forward and backward, that you can recite it like a textbook.
Thank
you. And so I really defer to you when trying to decide how to respond to this, because like Councilman Whitman, I think he really did a great job summarizing a lot of very similar... I feel very similarly to him in terms of our response to this. I know that it would probably be bad form for us to say we're not going to follow the Brown Act. And so, I wouldn't want us to respond in any way that would say that were intentionally not following the law.
And at the same time, I have a hard time signing something that I don't 100% agree with.
So... You know... I think Council Member Ruhl is next because she's been raising her hand for a while.
Normally, I would call to end the session and table this but we have a deadline. Yeah, we do. It's
not
possible. What?
We need a decision. So let's finish up. So Council Member Ruhl
is next. Do I need to be here for this decision?
We only need three to have a meeting
Okay I'm leaving because.
I
think there's a
very good chance there's a split vote and we may need three, we may need all four
votes. We had the chance to do this last time.
Okay it's Council Member Ruhl has been waiting. I just want to correct you Council Member Ruhl because I met Sabrina years ago in an exercise class. I think she's, I like her. She's a, I think she's an excellent lawyer for you to say she's my best friend. You don't know what you're talking about and what I've seen over and over again is that you practice selective outrage when you don't like the way things are going and I think that really needs to stop so I just want to correct the record there. Yep go ahead.
Well, I think we all. Uh, practice selective. Uh, right now we're choosing to believe one, you know, to put something to one, one attorney general, but not this DA, uh,
I use the word outrage, you know?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand that in your compassion and your love is also incredibly selective. So we know all of that's true. Everybody is selective in how they approach things. So I will take that as constructive criticism. And I would ask you also to look at yourself in the mirror for that Because you do exactly the same thing. So here is the decision, I think that if you guys don't wanna sign it, that's absolutely fine. I understand completely what I did. I understand the law around that and by the way Councilman Whitman, the DA talked to City Attorney Summers At least on two occasions, if not more. So he didn't just get my side of the story, he also had the city attorney's side of the story so once again accuracy is important here it wasn't you know it's just a complete mischaracterization of how this decision was made But that's okay because there are often complete mischaracterizations of how decisions are made, the votes going to go how the votes going to go.
The district attorney if we if we do not do this, he will come back and he will sue us. I think I don't know but if I were him, I would say yes. So let's take the vote however the vote goes. We're going to be in legal embroilment, this will never you know it's going to be for the next year we have heard consistently from our constituents that they want an end to this.
They want recording it makes absolutely no sense I mean with all due respect City Attorney Summers Trust when we say, we're not going to record our closed sessions. It can mean nothing more than we don't want it to come out on what we said and how we set it. You know, there's just no other interpretation from that. Yes, we can bolster that and improve it with greater, you know, more detailed agendizing or detailed reporting out. We've never reported out anything From any of our closed sessions, well one of them we did it was just and you know it's like two sentences.
So, you know the Council is going to vote, however the council votes, the DA is going to come back this is never gonna rest. And finally I do want to just close. With this, no matter what is said an attorney suing us cannot give a recommendation for another firm to come look and give us a new set of eyes. And also what we didn't realize at the time although Mary you made a comment about it was that this firm was well known for fighting development in small towns It's exactly what you said to me. They fought development in Carmel, small towns. That's why they're a good firm for us. So, you know, to Suze's point this always was about figuring out a way to end the development agreement that by the way was law passed by the previous council.
I'm not sure how I'm going to vote You know, but I can't do anything more than what I can do. So if nobody wants to vote for this and we want to keep this going and so be it, so be it. Abstain or vote no or vote yes. There was a lot that went on and there was a lot that went on that the city needed to know. And I stand by that 100%.
Just one point, you know if you don't want lawsuits then don't break the law. That's my feeling. Okay so... Madam
Mayor can I make a recommendation? Yes. Trying to hear voices perhaps one option would be to adjust the language of the commitment as drafted to attempt to Be mindful of the point about not committing to see something that the city didn't engage in for the first three, but also not invite more lawsuits that are unnecessary. So perhaps it could be revised in the title to provide residents from the council responding to the letter date whatnot with an unconditional commitment to follow the Brown Act and then in the lower in the language After the now therefore be resolved to District Attorney Nassarenko and Senior Deputy District Attorney Wold, cities received a cease and desist letter alleging the following violations.
Closed session disclosures too far December 13th, January 9th, January 10th disclosing closed session information absent exception and here are the changes. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M Brown Act, The City of Ojai hereby unconditionally commits for itself and the city, that it will follow the Brown Act and not engage in the challenged past actions as described in the future.
Forward-looking. The DA will obviously... It's a slight adjustment from the draft language which is sort of the standard language for this thing but I... The DA may well accept that as making the commitment for the future. An
option. I'd like to hear
how
Council Member Whitman feels about that.
And I should add, you could add the additional facts as well as recitals. I have no objection to adding additional recitals.
And what's your advice on doing that? I mean, they tried to make the record here. So just in case the DEA wants to know why we feel very committed to the idea we did not violate the Brown Act, I still would have concern about if you can fashion that language but also make a a special place for Councilmember Rule to make her affirmation with respect to the fourth item that they've addressed.
Because, so in other words you know a two-part thing items one through three I would sign your language, item number four Councilmember Rule can sign that if she agrees with that. That
could be baked into the resolution, something like a city hereby commits for itself and those councilmembers just list the names that vote for it and then the second thing, disclosing classified information, break that out, same commitment commits for the city and those council members approving it, bake it in one resolution as long as there are three votes for it.
That may meet the goal and the names under each of those two would specify who's doing what?
Okay,
that could work. So for
the fourth
item break out the fourth item in list and Certainly I've heard councilman rule make that commitment tonight She may well be willing to sign
it. I heard her say that so if I Think that could work. Yeah, so I'm in agreement With principle on that, I would really like to see it and I know that creates problems with our deadline tomorrow.
Right? So there is one solution to that. Well, there's two solutions to that. One is adjourn the meeting until tomorrow morning. We write it tonight and hear it tomorrow morning. I'm noting options. Alternatively we could adopt it as orally amended, write it up and then circulate it to all if there's any objections. Or the mayor signs resolutions. If the mayor has objected she can refuse to sign it. Put it back on the agenda for withdrawal but the only thing to note is the statute is very clear Once it's adopted, it can only be rescinded by majority vote taking an open session with notice.
So we could always... You can
include that language. I'm in agreement with that.
We have to give them 30 days' notice to rescind it. So you could adopt it tonight with the oral amendments and then if there's any objections of the actual language put it on a future agenda to rescind it, that's a choice.
And we meet our deadline that way?
5:13 – 5:1919 turns
If we adopt it, it meets the deadline. The trick is what I'm proposing is that we adopt it with oral amendments and
then prepare them and circulate them and it'll go through unless one of us says no,
I don't like that language. And then you put it on... We would throw it on an agenda to consider rescinding it, recognizing that rescinding it almost certainly invites litigation. An alternative would be And you're not going to like this next option, but it's an option. Take a five-minute recess, hop on a computer, we write it out, print five copies, we throw it on the screen share so Councilman Rule can see it on the Zoom system and then vote based on that.
I think we should because we can't, I don't want any more litigation. If one person doesn't like it that's what you said right?
It would have to come back to the council majority if it's adopted it's a majority vote to adopt it'd be a majority vote to unadopted to rescind it but the only way to avoid litigation of the DA that certain is to not is to adopt something like this commitment. If we don't adopt the commitment the DA may or may not sue he said before he would sue it's unclear if he would or wouldn't based on additional information provided tonight That's what
lawyers do tend to say that a lot,
right? It's very easy to threaten to go to court. It's a whole nother thing. I will sue you. Right. So that's a common threat. He'll have to consider his assessment. So
I'm preferring the idea that we adopt an oral amendment, but I want you to run through one more time how you would do that. Sorry.
No no it's fine okay so it would be the draft we have now at the top change the title to be and I'll read it in full rather than the paraphrase so we can have it clear on the tape at least
Real quick so the draft is in everybody's packet. So if you
and was on the website, it's attachment C
Yeah, so if you actually want to see it
Okay, so it would be a Resolution number 23 dash whatever number a resolution of City Council the city of Ojai California Responding to the May 15th 2023 letter from the Ventura County District Attorney with an unconditional commitment To follow the Brown Act The whereas's would be as the four that are there now. We would add the additional whereas's as stated by Council Member Whitman, and I can read those again if that's helpful.
I probably should. The statement of facts contained within the cease and desist demand by the District Attorney omits facts which are important to a determination of whether the matters discussed in closed sessions one, two and three were reasonably related as simply Ojai v. City of Ohio pending litigation. These supplemental facts include the following. One, that the simply Ojai v. City of Ojai pending litigation challenged legality of an ordinance that was previously adopted by the city council resulting in a development agreement generally known as the Becker Development Agreement hereafter ordinance. Two, that in addition to naming the City of
Ojai. So let me stop you from having to read through it because I did what I want to ask you is did you find that my recitation of events, which I tried to take from independent sources and not from the actual meeting to the extent possible was accurate.
Yes, given the reporting that's been made in the press, the information is both accurate and out in the public already. Then
I don't need you to read all 17 unless somebody else wants you to hear that? So how would we proceed
beyond
that? We stop at 17.
We stop with the facts. And then we would go, and we would include, so now therefore be it resolved that the council responds to the district attorney as follows per government code section 54960.2, D.A. Nasarenko and Senior Deputy D. A. Wold, City of Ojai has received or ceased an assist letter dated May 15th alleging that the following described past action legislative body violates the Ralph and Brown Act.
We'd list the three discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the claim closed session exception on December 13th, 2022 discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the claim to close session exception on January 9th, 2023 discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope with a claimed closed session exception on January 10th, 2023 here we would say with inclusion of all of the facts stated above And specifically, the City Council's reliance on the city attorney for purposes of the content of agendas for both open and closed session meetings at the City Council. In future compliance dependent primarily on the legal skill and advice of the city attorney, the City Council desires to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M.
Brown Act, the city of Ojai hereby unconditionally commits for itself and those city council members in the list of names that approve it that it will follow the Brown Act and not engage in the challenged past actions as described above, in the future. And then we would go on, from there we'd go on. The City of Ojai has received receipts since this letter dated May 15th alleging that the following described past acts and legislative body violates the Ralph M Brown Act colon item number four disclosing closed session information absent an exception here again in order to avoid unnecessary litigation without admitting any violation of the Ralph M Brown Act. The City of Ojai hereby unconditionally commits for itself and those city council members approving list the names Okay, I would sign off on that.
5:19 – 5:2841 turns
Those amendments, I'm good with that. And I meant to say this earlier because someone from the public thought that I was throwing you under the bus but it was not my intention. I echo everything that Council Member Lange said that I believe outstanding public meeting law attorney and I would not, I would not do this without having your advice.
Thank you appreciate that and happy to help the city
And I would echo that and Ojai is very lucky to have you. So thank you very much, Matt. Council Member Rulli, do you have a comment? There's no motion on the table currently. Not
yet.
OK.
Staff would recommend that motion.
Yeah. Well, I wanted to find out about making a motion to record closed session and when that would happen. And, you know, I wanted to also say that I think you're a fine attorney as well city attorney summers, but I think that we have defaulted to hiding as much as we can legally, as opposed to disclosing as much as we can legally or what protects us which is why we are where we are.
I think that clarification is worth making. So anyway, those are my two questions. I would like to make a motion that we record closed sessions. I don't know when that comes. I don't know if that is part of this. I don't know when it is. So I'm asking for guidance on that particular issue.
Can I ask you a question? Logistics of that?
Yeah, let me answer the question though. I think first the council could make a motion tonight or at a future meeting to record closed sessions with rules and regs to be developed. My recommendation would be to consider the commitment first given the deadline is tomorrow and then decide closed session recording whether tonight or at future meeting
And it's almost tomorrow, so I think we should do that right now. Is there a motion? I
move that we adopt the resolution with the oral amendments that have been discussed here tonight and that we circulate them tomorrow and get everybody's vote for approval What, tonight? Do we approve?
Well you've got to adopt it tonight because we can't violate the Brown Act by doing an email approval in the course
of a
committee
not to violate the Brown Act. Okay good I'm glad to get that advice and I will follow your advice and say That I'll make the motion that we adopt the resolution based upon amendment of the draft document as you've just described to us.
I'll second the motion,
okay Councilmember we roll your hands up and we're ready for a roll call here
So I guess I'm a little confused where we are. If I vote no, this goes down? Is that correct? We were talking about needing everyone to approve and I'm confused as to where we actually are in the process or is this a different thing and it's going to be a majority vote? That's my only question. No, it's just majority vote. Okay thank
you. Roll call please Weston. No.
Roll-call vote 1–0 · 3 under review
Show transcript
Sure. I do that once a year. It's just too much. No, I give myself one.
Abstained. Council Member Whitman?
Oh yeah.
Yes. Council Member Lange?
Yes. I'll go ahead and do yes, I'll go ahead. Yeah okay
all right
uh because i might need my abstain and it's already used it yeah it's already pro tem
yeah please state your your vote clearly
i'll state my vote as a yes okay yeah
motion passes
okay okay and then uh council member rule did you have a motion
Um, or you want to wait for a few? I can. Well it depends. You know, I don't want to wait like three months so it depends when it would be on the agenda to discuss I understand it's late. I'm feeling worse probably than anyone there but I'm going to yeah i'm going to make a motion. I'll make a motion that we record closed sessions, and I will just basically say that there really isn't any good reason not to, I mean I've heard you know it chills conversation.
Um, I've also you know there have been there have been on all these closed sessions, you know, no I didn't say that yes you did say that. No, I didn't do that. Yes, you did do that so it seems to me to avoid a he said she said and i think D's recommendation that it doesn't go online, it stays hard copy or offline on a hard disk or something like that to avoid some weird bot getting things is also fine. I don't know how we can Refuse to record closed sessions.
So I'm going to make a motion that we record closed sessions and if you can't say it publicly, don't say it and it's not going to chill. I don't believe it's going to chill the conversation per City Attorney Summers' evaluation and I think it will indeed help with transparency and trust in the community, because to say no is to say I don't want a record of this. And that is the opposite of transparency. So I make the motion. I hope it passes. I need a second. Thank you.
Is there a second? Yeah, I will second it but I want to ask question. So if we recorded isn't the same setup as what we have here, but without the video. I mean, is it complicated? What's
involved? You would solve the technology. It's not a technological question. It's policy and council operational questions. We would solve the technology.
And you said that some cities are doing it.
Some cities have been required by court order to record closed sessions. There may be some that do it voluntarily. I'm not aware of any that have done it voluntarily but I've also not surveyed every city in the state.
And it's something that if we don't want to do it down the road, we just say We don't feel the need because for we have the public trust. We're well-behaved And there's no more need
a commitment adopted by the council can be rescinded by the council at will
Okay, just to confirm the DA is not asking us
no he's dropped that
request he's dropped that so it's and
and I confirmed earlier that Matt a public meeting law attorney Actually an expert in public meeting law has advised us not to do that. You mean and and and Ravel Right. Who's the former head of the Fair Political Practices Commission, confirmed by the U.S. Senate by 100% vote advised us not to record our sessions and I don't with those qualifications and without A public meeting, law attorney telling us something to the contrary. I don't see how we can in good conscience reject The advice that we've been given by it.
I really think that it is amazing That we had an revel come and talk with us She is she is one of the greatest experts that has ever seen You know are But so, I don't think we can reject her advice
5:28 – 5:3417 turns
Let me allow me to regain my train of thought. I do not understand, with all respect for her expertise, I really didn't get anything out of that transparency session to be honest And blunt about it was not what I want because she did not her fault, not her fault at all. She had no idea what she was walking into but secondly there was an the only legitimate concern I heard was the leak that it could get out to the public and what are the chances of that? I mean, what's I don't understand that Leak is that a legitimate concern?
I don't I don't think that that was the reason that Matt or and Ravel Recommended to us that we not
what? Mr. City Attorney, would you like to handle this question the reasons why you don't recommend it and she said don't do it Oh
I was just telling the DA that we adopted it 4 to 1 with revisions. He's watching and is texting with questions, so the question of the concerns... Yes, the leak is a risk. The leak is something that exists can get out. If it doesn't exist, it can't get out. And to answer sort of the next question of my recommendation to you as your lawyer is do not create records that could be used against And it's a simple statement, and I stand behind it strongly. Can we have
some decorum please? Thank you.
And I stand behind it strongly because the Brown Act allows the city to discuss lawsuits. It allows the city to discuss certain employee hires, to discuss real estate negotiations among others, and those are allowed to be had in close session in order to not prejudice the city's position against an outside interest, a developer or someone who is... Imagine if Walmart tried to come to town We, I think the whole community would rally around fighting that we would want to be able to have.
It will we wanted to ensure that it will the ability to fight some outside threat like that is present. And that is preserved by having robust closed session discussions with appropriate agendas and reporting out. But the ability to have a confidential conversation is important, and if there's a tape recorder running, the risk is that it doesn't stay confidential.
So you're saying that they... The terrible example of Walmart could do... Right, and that's an extreme
example
but... Okay so someone could demand How does this work we put the somebody can't demand
It would be up to the rules that we would set I my recommendation will be that the closed session recordings if recorded could only be released with a council majority vote so
I'm gonna make a I'm gonna see if I can speed things up and make a counter or a substitute motion which is that we have Mr. Summers bring back to us sooner than 90 days, I don't know what our schedule is like but he'd bring back to us the topic of recorded closed sessions so that he can fully vet because I don' think we've ever had a focus on that Specific issue. So let's have him come back and give advice and you can spend time talking to hopefully public meeting attorneys And give you advice If you don't want to take mats but I think that that's the best way to resolve this is to have it come back with a full reporting of the pros and cons of Recording public our closed sessions.
Is there a second for that motion? I
I would second it with a friendly amendment that you also suggest alternatives. For example, written transcripts, minutes, policy involving reporting out
I accept that friendly amendment. That's a good, that's a
good. Council Member Ruhl?
Um, I wanted to say uh to the, to Ann Revelle and her expertise. I'm sure she is one of the top but she walked in here not knowing a thing about Ojai and what our situation is and our situation is an extreme lack of trust By the public for us what happens in closed session, and she had not been informed about that at all. She had not been informed about why she was actually here and I think that makes a huge difference because otherwise you're speaking generally you're not speaking specifically.
And so while I applaud and no doubt her expertise I think it warrants a conversation, or at least to note that she did not have a clue as to why we had called this workshop. What the real issues were and our real issue is that we have a lack of trust Among ourselves, but also with the public. And I would say that had we had a recorded session, I would not have had to disclose anything. I could just simply have sent back to the DA and it would have been done and all of this would be null and void. He would have heard the entire conversation he wouldn't need to have had And he disclosed this particular part or have the many conversations with Matt, he would have listened to what happened and that is the advantage of this.
We are in this mess because well let me put it another way we wouldn't be in this mess if we had a recording, because it would have been taken care of and that is the very reason And our constituents have overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly asked us to record our sessions. We the Brown Act is used Not to hide things, it's used to protect those things that need to be protected. But that's a very, very narrow window which I have learned a ton since this. So if we could agree on a date certain to bring this back then I would agree but otherwise actually I'm gonna make a new motion. I'm just gonna make my motion again is that well
Can we do both? Sure.
5:34 – 5:3933 turns
You can't commit to investigate something and then commit to do it. Those aren't consistent with each other. I am willing to investigate other ways
detailed notes of some sort, but really I think our guiding light has to be if we had handed this over to the DA would he have been able to make an accurate determination? And a recording he would be able to make an accurate determination. So that's my litmus test is because I don't wanna do this again and I wanna protect us all of us against having to do this again.
And I think a recording is the only thing that does that, really deeply and truly it's the only thing that does that.
I'm just going to comment that there's been a lot of statements like what Ann Revell knew or she didn't know enough or overwhelming you know feedback from the community I don't think there's a factual basis for any of that. And that's all I'll say. OK, fine.
It's fine. I'd like to make a comment. We wouldn't be in this mess if you hadn't revealed the closed session, if you had taken the appropriate advice and done the appropriate take. And this would
have
been-
Hadn't Sabatier in the Parenting Workshop about this when he said- This whole
issue?
Let's have a transparency workshop about this. All agree to be transparent about
it. My other question, just one other question that we haven't... How much does all this cost the city? Nobody asked.
We can put together figures but substantial.
Substantial. Okay. Instead of doing following the right path. Alright so we have a motion. Do you wanna repeat the motion one more time?
Roll-call vote Moved by Andrew Whitman
Show transcript
Okay and we have a second, can we have the roll call please? Yes.
Excuse me I'd like to make a substitute motion. I'm just going to make the motion that we record our closed sessions maybe I get a second maybe I'm gonna make a motion that we record our closed sessions.
Is
there no more time? That
was the original motion Council Member
Wolk. Yeah well I can make a third You know, I mean it's not if it's the same
motion. If it's the same ocean, OK roll call in motion no to the vote should be on the substitute motion. Roll
call please
Roll-call vote 2–1 motion. Roll call please roll call · 2 under review
Show transcript
this is to investigate and learn right? Yes. Yes
Councilmember Whitman. Yes motion passes. Okay.
Thank you very much we will Not move on. Let's move on to City Manager... No, Council Member Report, City Manager Report, future agenda. I'm sorry, I'm gonna have
to
leave now.
I apologize but I'm not feeling well so I am going to leave. The quorum exists, you don't need me. So thank you and have a good evening everyone.
You too, thank you Council Member Orr. Any council member reports?
Just too late.
Lots of great things are happening and we'll talk about them next time,
right? Pride. Our pride flag is flying!
The music festival, fantastic. Rotary turned 75. Los Padres Forest Watch event. All fantastic things. Okay, City Manager's report. You still awake there James?
The only thing I'll say is the items that we didn't get to will continue to the next meeting. The commission item, I think I can sort of get the sense that we'll want to re-notice it for all of the commissions so that everybody is aware and so we'll try to get that in the paper to bring back at the next meeting if...I think we might be past the deadline. So if we can get it, we'll bring it. If not, it will be postponed to the following meetings.
All right, well thank you all. Thanks for hanging in there everyone here and I appreciate your attendance and participation. We're adjourned