City Council — 2023-08-15

Call the order. Can we have quiet, please? We have a quorum. Could we have the roll call, please, Weston?

That's the minutes, right? Yes. And I want to make a correction. Should I do that now? I'll approve it except for my correction. Okay sure go ahead. On page... I think it's 1-5 of the minutes Yes, the July minutes page 1-5. And it's a correction that I made previously but I know that you all have a lot to keep track of. But on page 1- 5 where it says public comment and it lists all the names of the people in favor of the removal of the commissioner, I am certain that Barry Rabay and Dede Dorskin are in favor of keeping the commissioner.

Thank you. And then the rest I'll do during the meeting.

OK, so a motion to approve the consent calendar? Yes. And a second? Yes All in favor? Aye Wonderful. We will move on to discussion. We just have one discussion item tonight. It's proposed removal of planning commissioner And just a little background for the public and why we're deliberating on this topic again for the third time. At our July 11th City Council meeting, council majority voted to ask Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Stark whether to step down. At the following meeting on July 25th Mayor Pro Tem Francina pulled the minutes from that meeting and then made a motion to start this process over again at a future meeting because of some questions about the original motion Council majority voted to revisit this issues and this is why we are here now.

So Mr. City Manager, is there a staff report?

Just very briefly, I provided a written staff report to try to set the context of what we're doing. The mayor just summarized that. I think everyone knows that we're here under the process specified in our municipal code that allows the mayor or three council members to agendize a proposal to remove an at-will city commissioner from a commission. In either case, it requires a public vote of three City Council members to approve the action.

I also remind everyone in my staff report that commission appointments are made on an at-will basis and do not require citation of cause in making the action. I think that's important for people to understand, and sometimes hard for people to get the point of it but in all California cities appointments to city commissions are done on an at-will basis. I've never heard of one That did it in any other way.

And just as city managers and city attorneys, department heads are accustomed to the idea that when they're appointed that they're subject to dismissal on a no cause at will basis The same thing is done with the commission appointments throughout the state. In fact, that's the common way it's done and I think it's important for us to recognize these are community volunteers. They step up and they fill a role that's important to our community and I think Mr. Starkweather and all of our commissioners are due that respect and that appreciation and I think It is important to acknowledge as we go into a discussion like this, especially with the increase in the number of city councils that operate on a district-based election.

It has become more common that commissioners are appointed by district council members and with terms that run concurrently with the term of the appointing council member. Our code doesn't do that, which is an issue the council may wish to consider at some point in the future. We have the district council members assigned to each seat but we haven't consolidated that with the terms of office and something that I think the council might want to think about in the future. It's not why we're here today however And I bring it up only to point out that the removal of commissioners should not ideally imply anything more than a desire on the part of a council to seat different people or different perspectives.

It's a council prerogative. So I have no idea where this vote will go tonight. I steadfastly refuse to ask council members how they're going to vote on anything, but I do think it's important that I urge graciousness on all of our part, Pollyanna that I am because we are even in disagreement neighbors. So I think it's important that we go about something like this with that in mind.

I think it's important for the council to make a decision and move on because there's business that needs to be attended to I think Mr. Starkweather and all of our commissioners deserve our thanks for stepping up and doing the work that they do, and in that regard he deserves our thanks whether he remains seated or not. And with that Pollyanna statement, I'm done.

Okay, and just any questions from Council Mayor Pro Tem.

Could you also report what you've stated at the bottom of your staff report that in the history of Far back the decades that I've been involved there's never been a commissioner removed For any reason accept absences, and the one time that someone did try to remove a commissioner it failed. So this is an unprecedented move to remove a commissioner before their term is up.

We're still on questions.

Yes I'm asking... Well my question was for him to finish but since I finished it for him is that all right? Did I state it correctly?

Mostly. You asked me to find out if we had had commissioners replaced in this city before, and after talking to some local people, I said I wasn't able to find an example where anyone was removed for other than absenteeism or moving residency. Obviously I've seen it in other cities, but I haven't seen it. I couldn't report that there was any I was aware of in this city.

May I ask another question? So, my thinking when I made my motion and asked for a staff report specifically and it's in the records in the minutes that my motion included asking for a staff report. So you've done the best you can as our interim city manager with what you know but what I was really looking for and it took me awhile to realize Is that I wanted to know if there was any factual basis to Mayor Sticks allegations because unfortunately we are not starting with a clean slate. Everyone here recognizes...

Mayor Pro Tem, we're on short questions for staff. Do you have a short question for the staff?

So and it sounds like you do not know Am I right? Am I characterizing that you're not, that there's, you don't.

The right characterization would be that you never asked me that question and I wouldn't have answered it because this is an at-will situation and I would not have delved into the issues of cause one way or the other but that's just a straight answer to the question.

Yes, but it's an important point because-

Mayor Pro Tempore, just a reminder we are on questions. We're not on discussion. Thank you. Okay any other questions? Council Member Rule?

Yeah so City Attorney Summers when I asked you for case law around a situation such as this you sent me a example of case law from San Francisco And I read through it and I found more dissimilar things than I found similar things, but that's not the point of my question. Very many more dissimilar things than similar things. But my point of my question is when I went to the San Francisco website to check further on the case what I did see was something that said – and this was from the district attorney? No, no, it's a question. It is absolutely a question So if I could take the time to make the question it would be much appreciated the short questions. Thank you No, there's nothing that says short don't start so basically what that website said in the district attorney's office said you can fire a commissioner for good reason and or no reason, and this was from the city.

Good reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason. And this is on their front page. Now I tried to figure out what they considered to be an illegal reason and I wasn't able to delve deeply into that. I couldn't find where they said okay yeah you can do good reason and no reason but you can't do illegal reason and here's what illegal reason is I didn't find that. All I found was that statement, so my question to you is what would be an illegal reason? Now it's on the San Francisco District Attorney's website right there so they have to believe that there is an illegal reason and I just don't know what it is and that's why that's what I'm asking you and I apologize for having taken the time but I felt like there had to be context in what I was talking about

So I'm not familiar with the statement you're citing from the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. However, an illegal reason for removal of a commissioner would be a reason that violates applicable law and policy. As an example, the state and federal constitutions more broadly than the state constitution protect certain immutable characteristics, gender, race, sexual orientation, that list of characteristics. Removing a commissioner for that reason solely because they are one race or another, that would most likely be unlawful.

And I have a follow-up question. Furthermore, we've heard contention not just from Commissioner Starkweather but from others as well that And this is what your case cited was, and like I said, I'm not gonna use that case because then we would have to get into delving deeply into that case. But what that case was about was freedom of speech, the right to say what you want to say. And they made that case that this was an illegal firing Because of freedom of speech, that was the case that the plaintiffs made against the firing.

And there are a lot of reasons why that case was decided against the plaintiffs and like I said they're more dissimilar than they are similar so I'm wondering if you can speak to the fact In that case, they were sued for freedom of speech, violation of freedom of speech. In other words, fired because of freedom of speech. That's what I specifically asked you for and that's what you specifically sent me. So do you have any thoughts around this particular situation? And once again, you can fire for good reason, no reason but not for an illegal reason. Is freedom of speech an illegal reason?

not for a high-level policymaker. That's what the Lumpkin versus Brown case makes clear, that you can and I'll quote Government employees who occupy policymaking positions may even be removed solely on the basis of political affiliation, whether or not the employees make public statements because of quote, the need for political loyalty of employees. Not to the end that effectiveness and efficiency be ensured but to the end that representative government may not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration.

Applying further quote, applying the Pickering balancing test we hold in this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the city's interest in having commissioners who worked to promote city policies far outweighs any commissioner's First Amendment interest in publicly expressing views that subvert those policies. Right, so... So in that case you've asked me whether my view is on it and in that case there the City of San Francisco removed a commissioner who had articulated a series of views that were manifestly at odds with the city's views particularly there a commissioner who was on the Human Rights Commission advocating views that were abhorrent as to gays and lesbians here this is somewhat different but This basic rule is the same. The City Council has a right to choose commissioners that support its policies as it sees fit, and it would be lawful if the council were to choose a different commissioner on the basis of a policy view.

That would not violate the First Amendment.

Okay, so it would not violate the First Amendment if indeed we could determine that there was a policy difference. The other thing since you brought it up I will mention is that Commissioner Starkweather... There's a question here. Would you say that Commissioner Starkweather is a high-level policy maker because the Planning Commission does not make policy?

The Planning Commission recommends policies at City Council, so yes, I would say that.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Whitman. I

have some questions, so we held a hearing on July 11th and a whole bunch of people submitted written statements and a whole bunch of people spoke. And I'll just characterize what was said as being... So the majority of the input from the community was in favor of removal of Mr. Starkweather, and so my question is What happens with all of that? Is that part of our record if in fact Mr. Starkweather is removed and he decides to sue, is it all like part of the record already or do we need to move formally to have our comments from All those people who came out incorporated into the record

or is it just there already? Oh, the comments are already on the tape and in the minutes as reflected in the minutes. Okay. There's no need to formally tie the two together. As noted, the council's vote was to start over so to a certain extent tonight is a new hearing on the same question and if it were ever litigated all of its on the tape and we transcribe the tapes and that's what the court would see. Okay.

Are you finished, Council Member Whitman?

I got a couple other questions. So... I know what the term at will means but I'm an attorney so I don't want to assume what other people believe at will means. Can either one of you kind of explain the concept of at will

Yeah happy to. The city understands at will means that you can be removed from a position for any reason or no reason but not an unconstitutional or illegal reason

OK

and it's equivalent in common parlance Most private employees of a private business are at will. They can be removed for any reason or no reason, but not an unlawful or unconstitutional reason in distinction with civil service employees which are the city's employees but not commissioners who are protected and have to be removed only for good cause as shown under applicable rules and regulations

Yeah, in that case that we've been talking about they actually list race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability or place of birth as things you could not single out as a reason for dismissing somebody. So my next question is I guess for each of you, I'll ask you first Matt. In your experience is it unusual for a city to allow a non-city resident to serve on the Planning Commission?

So I've not done a survey of every city but all the cities that I worked in limit commissions to residency. Not...I'm sure there's some beyond Ojai that don't but all the cities that I worked in that's the limitation.

And Mark?

In my 10 cities, I've never been in a city where a planning commissioner was a non-resident. I've been in cities where historic preservation or architectural commission members with special skills were from outside the city but never a planning commissioner. Not that it couldn't be done but I've never seen it.

So in our ordinances that establish the Planning Commission, there's a statement that says while it's preferred that all members of the commission have primary residence and be domiciled within the city. A minimum of three members of the commission must have primary residence and be domiciled within the city. So my question is when we make that statement, when this you know the city makes that statement in its ordinance that it's preferred that all members of the commission have primary residence and be a city resident is that a policy

statement? Yeah it's a policy statement. It's enforceable by the council each time they make an appointment.

Just reminder Council if you can bring it through the chair Mayor pro tem you have a question.

Are you done? Yeah OK. It is my understanding that the policy is that there can be Commissioners that live outside the city limit, because we have such a small 4.2 mile city and it is recognized that that city would not exist if it wasn't for the people outside the city rallying every time our small city is attacked. And that's a very important point. We would not have the small town we have without the support of the people outside the city. Well, I'm defending because there is an insinuation.

But we are not in discussion? Yes

but we are in discussion whether you like it or not.

No, we're not. I'm running this

meeting if you have another question. I do have another question. So is a character assassination or an allegation that Mr. Starkweather was a misogynist and that he was trouble for our staff? Both of those allegations have to the best of my knowledge been disputed but When you say a good reason or no reason, but not an illegal reason is that considered an illegal reason?

No

Okay That's that's your opinion. That's right

My advice to the city is if the council can remove any Commissioner including Starkweather Although tonight's only Starkweather for any reason or no reason but not on the lawful reason removing him for past past statements would not be unlawful It's up to the council to decide, but it would be lawful. We await majority direction.

All right, any other questions from the council? Yeah, I do

have a question. Go

ahead

Susan. Can I ask a question because since normally we ask questions of staff reports, I'm going to ask since the mayor's statement is included here as if it's like a staff report.

Well, it's not part of this.

It's right here. It's in the packet. Your statement is here in the packet. Yeah, yeah, not the past statement. So I would like for you to clarify this statement for the audience. It says here that I have previously advised Mr. Starkweather of my intention to bring this item to the special meeting agenda of August 15, and I've made two offers to him to speak to me by phone. He has declined to resign and so I ask my colleagues to consider his appointment but it's important that you state also that Mr. Stark

Questions for staff right now.

But this is in here like a staff report as if it's a staff report. I think it's important That you clarify that Mr. Starkweather wanted to meet with you personally with our city manager. That should have been included in your statement. We want full disclosure, we want

transparency, we want honesty. So you have a question for staff right now?

Well I'm considering that your statement is like a staff report. There is no real staff report so there's not too many questions I can ask. Okay, I'm done. Just

a minute, staff any comments?

The code requires that the mayor or three council members begin the removal process, that the mayor's statement does so. Mayor Pro Tem or any other council members on how to ask the mayor any questions on it, the mayor can answer or refuse to answer as council may desire.

Okay. And just to clarify, I asked on August 2nd to answer your question Mr. Stark-Weather for a phone call. He declined my offer and instead replied that he would like to meet with our city manager and me. As you all know we have very busy staff. We have a limited number of hours with our city manager and I want his time to be devoted to moving council majority priorities forward So instead of talking to me on the phone, Mr. Starkweather opted not to have a meeting at all and then I asked him again on August 7th. I emailed him to ask for a second call and I did not get any response so that is the full

story. My question to you is you've never had a face-to-face Conversation before all of this. I

have yes, I have met with mr. Stark whether in the past I asked him for two phone conversations That's the answer any other questions from council?

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. I just want to clarify City Attorney you are stating that Or you did state or did you state like did you state that there are no first amendment rights attached to a illegal Firing I mean because Councilmember Whitman read through the standard protected classes, right? So that's great. You know the standard protected class is very good But I'm still unclear whether or not whether it's your belief or you know you have either some sort of legal Backing to say that a First Amendment is not a protected state in the firing. So when they say illegal, at will no reason, at will no reason except illegal. It is your belief and you're telling us here that a violation of a First Amendment right would and illegal reason.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to speak subject without being removed from high-level policymaking positions, so you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying. Let me restate it. No no

that's why I'm asking.

Let me restate it. The First Amendment protects anybody from arrest for what they say, subject to except for true threats and things like that. It protects against most civil liability except for defamation law. It also protects government employees from being fired for their jobs or what they say if they are not Occupying Commissioners who are being removed in part as a basis for what they have said, if what they have said is antithetical to the city or is inconsistent with the city's policies that removal does not violate the First Amendment. And the basis for it is the case we've all been citing, Lumpkin v. Brown 109 F. 3rd 1498.

Yes and so a follow up question. First of all I did not mischaracterize what you said it was a question to clarify what you said because I was unsure. So I did not mischaracterize it was instead clarification that's the first thing. The second thing is is so the things that would be in contention would be you know did he say anything that was again that was in was contrary to city policy Correct I mean that's one of the

questions for the council to consider right so so if the removal is for cause

right so. Right so we would have to but it's not for cause

it could be not because it before cause it's up to the council

okay all right and if it were for not cause. Would it be I'm just trying to get to the real question is, is there a pending lawsuit at risk here because there is a First Amendment right for a you know we've already we've had councilmember Whitman say that Jeffrey's a political activist and therefore you know dot dot dot take But he is also, I'm assuming the problem is political speech or something. So I just want to get to the idea that, you know, Inoculated, I mean you're never inoculated because anybody and I'm testament to that anybody can sue anybody about anything. Thank you very much So but but is the city? inoculated against First Amendment filing basically base so saying an illegal Whatever, not firing, whatever you would call it. Removal, thank you.

Illegal removal based on a claim of a First Amendment right and when you say okay, you had the Human Rights Commissioner for San Francisco who said, Lesbian, gays, et cetera, et cetera are all going to hell. He's a pastor and he's brimming firestone, that kind of stuff. Well that's pretty obviously problematic but this is much more nuanced. And so number one I just wanna know if you think the city is inoculated based on what you said and based on the nuances around the different cases Because, you know, you could take contention with is he a high-level policymaker. Well, you know, you could take... So that's and I still don't have an answer to that. You know, is the city inoculated from yet another lawsuit given that anyone can sue anybody around First Amendment?

My advice is the city could defend the removal of Mr. Starkweather if that is what action has taken, however there are no guarantees in litigation as you've noted. Mr. Starkweather said in his comments this afternoon that he does not have a personal intention to sue it nothing is binding on that front he could still file the suit someone else could file it for him although would be questionable if they have standing to do that I think only he would have standing I don't know if he will or won't sue so I can't guarantee anything but I think we can defend the suit if he does file suit

Thank you very much. Thank you for your clarifications, thank you for edifying me on the laws and I rely upon you to do that so I just want you know I did not mean to mischaracterize but I did need clarification so thank you. Any other questions?

I'm sorry, one more question. Mayor Pro Tem? It's a simple question so you are characterizing a planning commissioner any planning commissioner as a high-level policymaker

Yes, the reason is twofold. Number one is noted they make recommendations to the Council on policy including the general plan zoning code amendments and other significant policy documents in that role it's a recommendation not an adoption. Adoption has to be made by the elected officials second they also exercise land use power they approve conditional use permits they approve entitlements for land-use projects there are significant aspects of the community in that role they are subject to appeal of course the elected officials but they are high level policymaking officials

Thank you.

All right, Council, let's move on to public comment. First we have Larry Steingold then Bill Miley then Steve Quillacy and I'm going to make a request from the audience if you could stay silent before during and after comments and if you agree with someone you can always use jazz hands right?

Good evening resident. I think we're here not because if back July I believe it's July 25th you everybody here, not everybody but there are people here who basically ripped him another one while he wasn't here. Which is why we're here tonight. Because if you did it the right way, we wouldn't be here because if you can get rid of a city councilor at will then that's it but to do it when he wasn't here has caused a huge problem because now hey can you get hung in absentia? Can you get lynched when you're not here?

So I mean that's my problem not that you don't like Jeffrey or Jeffrey's a pain just like I am or whatever else it's okay Okay. But to do it when somebody's not here? Nah, that doesn't work. If you have the right to do it, do it but don't do it at night or at least maybe do it midnight. Mr. Whitman in all due respect if you say you're an attorney and you keep saying here that I'm an attorney and this and that Please, if you're going to be legal counsel for the City Council, please do that. If not, try not to be their attorney. That's his job, correct? Because you keep saying you're an attorney and I know your defense attorney has great experience and I think it's wonderful but you keep saying that so either you're giving them legal advice or you're not.

That's what I'm just saying but you keep saying I'm an attorney and so that implies something Also, regarding I would bring up their whole July 25th video. Weston can bring it up the whole meeting and let Mr. Starkweather go minute by minute and let him comment on every comment, on every line item, on every digit made for the last four hours or five hours of that meeting when he wasn't here which will solve everybody's conversation here because then he can comment on everything And we can all go home because then you can say next week, you put them on the agenda. We're going to get rid of a Matt Will and call it a day and then we can all move on. We have spent eight months dealing with a lawsuit with Becker video audio this everything else.

Can we please get onto getting things done like finishing the roads which were doing a great job? It's great. We see concrete getting poured so please this Just put the video back on for July 25th meeting, and we'll sit here and we'll do it again. Because he's going

to go over it. Thank

you very much.

Thank you Larry. Next we have Bill Miley then Steve Quillacy then Sherry Ann Cate.

Hello. Appointing a citizen to a city commission carries responsibility for the city's future. Wanting to remove a commissioner before their appointed term is up also carries responsibility for the city's future What does the mayor want for Ojai's future? Her votes against the Becker project indicate little support for deeded affordable housing. Her lack of leadership for deeded affordable housing shows less than enthusiastic support for a housing element.

A key crisis here in Ojai is housing justice, with close to 50% of renters paying over 30% of their annual income for a roof over their heads. That's a fundamental human security crisis. Our planning commission is key to making the housing element work. Of the 19 affordable housing action steps the city committed to, 18 are Our co-responsibility of the Planning Commissioners and City Development Department.

The Mayor tries, a Rent Stabilization Ordinance just passed and a Developer Required Marketing Ordinance, the first somewhat late in the game, and the second possibly limiting free speech. Getting rid of a Commissioner? Why does she want this? I suggest it's because Commissioner Starkweller is well known for his advocacy of dated affordable housing and housing justice.

And the mayor does not have that on a priority list for the city's future. She likes ADUs and house share, neither of which address the large problem. The task for commissioners in California It's to do what is best for the entire city now and in the future. Please consider what commissions will do. One key is getting more citizen input and providing transparency. It appears that a key element in wanting to remove Commissioner Starkweather, is his local support for deeded affordable housing.

California law and recent new methods of enforcement are being put in place to encourage such development. Our housing element is the only legal document requiring state approval. Thus, I believe it is important that we keep Jeffrey Starkweather on the Planning Commission. He's a retired civil rights and land use attorney who has extensive experience at city, county, and state levels with affordable housing, land use planning, sustainable communities, and social justice. Thanks.

Thank you Bill. Next we have Steve Quillacy then Cherianne Cate and Barbara Bowman.

Good evening how sad that we find ourselves still debating this surely you must all realize at this point that a majority of the citizens of Ojai consider City Council meetings a circus, a joke A waste of your time and our time when there are real problems to be solved. I recognize that my speaking tonight paints a target on my back for similar retribution, but these things must be said.

There is no good reason to remove Jeffrey Starkweather from the Planning Commission. Your pathetic attempt last month at character assassination didn't fool the people And ultimately, you couldn't even get three votes in city council to remove him. It might get you and the city a defamation lawsuit though which would be hard to defend against. Former mayor or I'm sorry City Manager James Vega confirmed that Jeffrey stopped using staff time when he was asked Now you fall back on just because I said so as a rationale to remove a commissioner. Clearly, a matter of personal revenge with nothing to back it up.

The fact that you can legally remove a commissioner for no cause doesn't mean you should. Mr. Starkweather's performance at a planning commissioner has not been political. He has followed the Ojai Municipal Code in his deliberations, as have all of us. If you find fault with our decisions, you should change the code and we will enforce the new rules. Further consider the chilling effect this removal would have on prospective commissioners to volunteer one must agree not to endorse the right candidate for election Calling Jeffrey a political activist, I know was meant to be a criticism. But instead it showed an ignorance of the duties of a planning commissioner.

I'm sure that on many political issues Jeffrey and I are on opposite sides but that is irrelevant to our deliberations and our decisions as planning commissioners. Commissioner or Council Member Lang has said we need to put this issue behind us and I wholeheartedly agree. The best way to do that is to vote against this proposed removal, and allow Mr. Starkweather to serve out the term to which he was appointed. You can simply appoint someone else to fill his seat at that time if that's your pleasure.

Removing him now with such a weak rationale will make you look like petty, insecure, vengeful... Vengeful tyrants, not what you want. Not what the city wants Thank you.

Thank You Steve next we have Sherry and Kate then Barbara Bowman then Lincoln

When I vote for City Council members I Vote for activists I vote particularly for activists that represent my values. If I could vote for planning commissioners, I would vote for people who are knowledgeable and educated about planning issues. However, planning commissioners are appointed by city council so I don't get to vote. Since I moved here in 1988, I've seen our planning commissioners really impartially review items on their agenda and make cogent recommendations to the city council.

They were familiar with zoning and building codes and particularly the general plan. Until recently, I have never seen Citizen activists be appointed to the Planning Commission and then publicly oppose direction from the city and its representatives. Since planning commissioners serve at the direction of the City Council, I urge this city council to replace any planning commissioners they recognize as being biased or having activist stance in their capacity as an advisor to the city government.

Thank you very much for making a good decision about this.

Thank you, Cherianne. Next we have Barbara Bowman, then Len Claife, then John Brooks.

Barbara Bowman. Can you hear me? Barbara Bowman, retailer, property owner, resident. Mayor Stix and Councilman Whitman, I want to say that you are really a major disruptive force of the City Council, and you have been. You're basically blowing up any working possibility of our local city council. The public hanging and attempted humiliation of Jeffrey Starkweather over contrived wrongdoings was just another attempt to put a wrench in one of the most successfully working commissions we have.

This commission, the Planning Commission, has a history of approval and agreement five-to-one or five-to zero actually And they meet 100% of the time. Jeffrey's fellow commissioners want him to remain and approve of the work he does as part of the commission. We could remove any obstacle that is presently impeding the functioning of our city, it would be you and you.

Councilman Whitman and Mayor Sticks. You are the impediment to any council functioning well. Because Whitman & Stix, aiding the lawsuit and supporting Simply Ojai against the city over the Becker project and stonewalling the Cabrillo Economic Corporation which is 100% affordable building housing project we are probably going to get sued. They have every right to sue.

The problem is that Whitman and Styx, I wish were getting personally sued not the city of Ojai. We don't deserve it we haven't asked for it we haven't even agreed with the way you voted in fact the last council voted 4-1 you were the only one that objected to pass the Becker project. You have put us in an absolute mess Month after month after month, you drop another wrench in another project over and over again. And you create chaos at the City Council.