Oxnard Mayor Tim Flynn, after a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, made a disclosure that drew applause but also raised more questions than it answered regarding a legal battle with former city manager Ed Sotelo.
“I just want the public to know — I think they have a right to know — that I voted against settling with Mr. Sotelo,” Flynn told the audience.
He made the announcement after asking Interim City Attorney Stephen Fischer whether the council could choose to reveal its closed-session vote. Fischer told the mayor he’d need to do a legal analysis, and Flynn then announced his vote before the council moved on to the flag salute.
After the meeting, Fischer said he couldn’t provide any details regarding the nature of the closed session.
Whether the council approved, rejected or simply discussed a possible settlement in the federal case wasn’t immediately clear.
Three of the four other council members reached by phone Wednesday declined to reveal their votes, citing concerns about violating public meeting law covering confidential information learned in closed session.
Council member Carmen Ramirez said she wanted the city attorney’s advice first. “If he says no problem, I’d be happy to reveal it,” she said.
Council member Bert Perello also said he wanted the city attorney’s OK, while Council member Bryan MacDonald said such disclosures can weaken the city’s negotiating position.
Had the matter been resolved Tuesday the council would have reported it, MacDonald said, adding he’ll have no problem discussing his vote when the suit concludes.
“If you can read between the lines, you can presume it’s still ongoing,” he said.
Council member Dorina Padilla could not be reached.
Flynn said Wednesday that he felt compelled to tell people how he had voted, saying secrecy can cause people to be cynical about democracy and politics.
Experts on state public meeting law known as the Brown Act said the situation was a gray area.
“It’s unclear when a council member reveals their own vote in a closed session whether that violates the Brown Act,” said Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz, who enforces Brown Act issues for the Ventura County DA’s office.
Even if Flynn did step over the line, he said, the matter would not fall into the criminal realm, where violations can be misdemeanors.
“That’s only if you deprive the public of information,” Schwartz said. “This is the opposite. The question is whether he provided too much information.”
If Flynn did err, he could theoretically be subject to a lawsuit, council discipline or referral to the grand jury, Schwartz said, though the issue in play involves highly technical aspects of information acquired in closed-session.
Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said he saw neither a Brown Act violation nor a breach of attorney-client privilege because the mayor shared only his vote, not the outcome or information obtained in closed session.
Both Ewert and Schwartz said the council, with a majority vote, could have chosen to disclose Tuesday’s vote. Public bodies generally must report closed-session votes, but there are exceptions, including items involving ongoing litigation.
Sotelo’s suit, filed last August, claims he suffered retaliation and harassment. His 15-year tenure with Oxnard ended on a sour note, with the council putting him on paid leave for more than a year before his contract expired in February 2013. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 13.
Before Tuesday’s closed-door session, five residents urged the council not to settle.
“Play the game. Have depositions. Find out what cards he holds,” Martin Jones told the panel. “Then make a decision whether to play the game or settle.”
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2014/may/14/oxnard-councils-vote-sotelo-mystery/#ixzz31lMMjlWE
- vcstar.com
No comments:
Post a Comment