Last week’s City Council meeting saved the most intense for last with discussion item 16c, a request made by Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick to direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal for both an investigation into recent leaks of confidential information disclosed during Closed Sessions and subsequent penalty for anyone caught doing it.
While Council ultimately made a unanimous decision, it only came after a fiery debate with dueling motions and some confusion over exactly what was being authorized.
The Brown Act allows municipalities to hold discussion outside the view of the public, typically including real estate negotiations, employee matters and conversation with attorneys regarding legal matters. These are known as Closed Session items on the agenda. The Act also allows council to disclose information above and beyond stipulated legal requirements, but doing so requires specific direction and vote of council. Any open discussion of the items talked about in closed sessions without prior authorization is a violation.
This is not the first time Council has faced this controversy and a leak investigation was discussed several years ago following the release of Rene Bobadilla as the top choice for the then vacant City Manager position.
In response to more recent unidentified leaks, Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick had asked for the City Attorney to return with a proposal to ensure the City’s ethics rules apply to Councilmembers, return with a proposal to initiate an investigation into recent leaks of confidential information disclosed in Closed Session and return with one or more proposals to impose penalties on Councilmembers and staff who inappropriately leak confidential information out of Closed Session.
"In discussing this matter with the City Attorney, I was informed that although the City has ethics rules that apply to each of its employees, those six rules do not apply to councilmembers. And I believe that the city attorney has actually drafted a proposal he can bring back to have the city’s ethical rules apply not only to employees, but to council members," Davis said.
Councilmember Christine Parra, who very much led the charge for not conducting an investigation from the outset, inquired as to how much such an investigation might cost. "I think last time we went through this exercise, the estimates were approximately $150,000 to $200,000, which coincidentally is the same amount of money to fully fund a police officer salary for a year," she said.
"Integrity at some level has some cost to it," Davis responded, adding, "If we’re having people violate the Brown Act, we need to at least contemplate the idea of doing an investigation to find out who is doing that." She postulated that the cost would probably come from the general fund, but that would be clarified once the City had returned with a proposal.
Doug Sloan, City Attorney stated that there are state law consequences for such a violation that could potentially lead to criminal action, an injunction and having to pay attorneys fees, but the city has to initiate an investigation before anything else applies.
Parra reiterated that while it’s "paramount" that any confidential information discussed in closed session not be discussed openly, however, she also reminded everyone in chambers that it is an election year.
"You know, as this is an election year, there’s no surprise to this agenda item, [it’s] a waste of taxpayers dollars and resources," she said. "It’s also paramount that established council rules are followed to ensure good governance and transparency. However some on Council feel those rules don’t apply to them as evidenced by habitual violations.
"Without a doubt leaking closed session confidential information is unacceptable. Without a doubt. However, weaponizing the city attorney’s office for political gain is absolutely disgusting," she said.
She cited an incident where recently, there was a city council candidate debate by the Democratic Club and this very topic was one of the questions to the candidates but this particular 16 item had not been released on the agenda yet.
"While I may be making assumptions, this is not the first time that we’ve seen the liberal minority use this body for political gain," she said. "Why don’t we direct the city attorney’s office to bypass the investigation and come back with a proposal on how to handle future violations and what the remedy would be if we’re truly committed to truth and justice. But let’s just fix the process."
The heated discussion continued, largely between Parra and Davis. Zwick interjected that penalties did in fact exist, so all that was remaining was to pinpoint exactly who was committing the violation, but again Parra insisted that this was akin to a witch hunt.
Parra made a motion directing the City to prepare a proposal on how to revise council rules to include penalties for habitual offenses and a proposal on how to handle repeat offenses. However, her motion did not include any investigation of leaks that have already occurred.
Sloan said that he had in fact drafted something along these lines approximately 18 months ago, so he offered to include that in the proposal. Tempers began to fray as confusion erupted over what exactly was being voted on. Parra’s idea was rejected without a vote and a substitute motion was made with adjustments that included researching the cost and feasibility of an actual investigation. However, this too was rejected with a tied vote of 3-3 along political lines. (Councilmember Oscar de la Torre was absent.)
Ultimately, the motion that was carried by a unanimous 6-0 vote was made by Davis and seconded by Zwick and breaks down as follows:
• Direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal to ensure the City’s ethics rules apply to Councilmembers.
• Direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal on how to handle future confirmed leaks of information from closed sessions and what the remedy would be.
• Direct the city attorney to return with a proposal on how to revise council rules to include discipline or penalties for habitual offenses.
• Direct the City Attorney to return with a proposal on how to handle repeat Brown Act offenses to include discipline or penalties.
