Meeting Summary
Present: Stix, Francina, Rule, Lang, Whitman
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details — verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Proposed Removal of Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Starkweather
- Legal counsel confirmed commissioners serve at-will and removal does not require specific cause.
- Public feedback highlighted concerns over the commissioner’s conduct and political activism alongside support for his expertise.
- The council rejected a substitute motion to retain the commissioner and passed the original motion for removal.
Full summary
Special Meeting of the Ojai City Council
- Date: August 15, 2023
Consent Calendar and Agenda Approval
- Agenda: A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda.
- Outcome: Passed.
- Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the consent calendar, including the minutes from the July meeting.
- Correction: Mayor Pro Tem Francina requested a correction to the July minutes regarding public comment records, noting that two individuals were in favor of keeping the Planning Commissioner rather than removing him.
- Outcome: The consent calendar motion passed.
Proposed Removal of Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Starkweather
- Background: The Mayor provided background indicating this is the third deliberation on the topic. Previous meetings in July involved a vote to ask the commissioner to step down and a subsequent vote to revisit the process.
- Staff Report: Interim City Manager Scott explained that under the municipal code, commissioners are appointed on an at-will basis. Removal requires a public vote of three City Council members and does not require citation of cause.
- Legal Counsel: City Attorney Summers responded to questions regarding "illegal reasons" for removal. Counsel stated that while at-will appointments allow removal for any or no reason, it cannot violate applicable laws, such as discrimination based on protected classes. Counsel cited case law indicating that planning commissioners, considered high-level policymakers, do not have First Amendment protection against removal if their views are antithetical to city policies. Counsel also confirmed that public comments from the July 11th meeting are part of the official record.
- Council Questions: Council members inquired about residency requirements for commissioners, the definition of at-will employment, and the classification of the Planning Commission as a policymaking body.
- Public Comment: Numerous members of the public appeared to provide statements. Comments included concerns regarding the commissioner's conduct, political activism, use of staff time, and conflict of interest. Other comments supported the commissioner, citing his adherence to city code, expertise, advocacy for affordable housing, and the precedent that would be set by his removal. Commissioner Starkweather addressed allegations regarding his conduct and political activities.
- Council Discussion: Council members discussed community feedback, the commissioner's performance, and the implications of the removal.
- Motions:
- Original Motion: Council Member Whitman moved to remove Jeffrey Starkweather from the Planning Commission and all city assignments. Mayor Stixx seconded the motion.
- Substitute Motion: Mayor Pro Tem Francina moved to take no further action and allow Commissioner Starkweather to remain seated for his current term. Council Member Rule seconded the motion.
- Voting:
- Substitute Motion: The substitute motion failed.
- Original Motion: The motion to remove the Planning Commissioner was put to a vote.
- Outcome: Passed.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned.