Laserfiche WebLink
Jeffrey Lewis <br />February 6, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />damaged. He again repeated his request for an official answer from the City Council by <br />October 16, 2017. <br />Meanwhile it should be noted that the City Council agenda for the meeting on Tuesday, <br />October 17, 2017, went out on Tuesday October 10, 2017, without listing a closed session item to <br />discuss the litigation threat from Mr. Huang or his request that the Council clarify if <br />Mr. Campbell was speaking on behalf of the City or not. It is unclear as to when <br />Councilmembers actually read the emails, but in any event, it wasn't until later in the week, after <br />the agenda had been posted, that the request was received by Staff for a closed session item to be <br />agendized for discussion by the Council. <br />You have raised objections as to whether the matter was legally added to the agenda, <br />either because it didn't constitute a work stoppage, crippling disaster, terrorism or other dire <br />emergency under Section 54956.5; or there wasn't a need for action, or the need didn't occur <br />after the agenda was posted, under Section 54954.2. The City Council believes the matter did in <br />fact qualify to be added to the agenda under Section 54954.2. Within the meaning of subsection <br />54954.2(b )(2), there was a finding of the need for immediate action arising subsequent to the <br />posting of the agenda. As such, the City Council will not make a commitment to forgoing <br />similar action in the future under similar circumstances. However, you also allege that under <br />Section 54956.9(e), the City Attorney failed to adequately explain publicly the rationale for the <br />addition of the closed session item, which, you believe should have specifically stated as <br />involving a threat by Mr. Huang to take legal action against the City. We agree that the specific <br />nature of the litigation threat and of the Mayor's alleged improper conduct could have been <br />presented with more specific detail. <br />Accordingly, the City makes the unconditional commitment that in the future, when a <br />litigation matter is added to the agenda due to a threat of litigation, and the facts and <br />circumstances are known as to the potential plaintiff/issue, the City Attorney will make an oral <br />disclosure of the threat publicly at the time the matter is considered for addition to the agenda. <br />Furthermore, and in accordance with Section 54960.2, the approval of this letter will be on a <br />regular business agenda item (and not on the consent calendar) on February 6, 2018. Moreover, <br />in an abundance of caution, we will also reauthorize a letter and send a new letter to Mr. Huang <br />clarifying that Mr. Campbell was not speaking for the entire City Council/City in the email in <br />question, that it was an apparent violation of Council Protocol 14, and that Mr. Campbell was/is <br />also being uncooperative in dealing with Mr. Huang's subsequent public records requests. <br />Additionally, we commit that the City Council may only rescind this commitment by a <br />majority vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting, which was noticed <br />on its posted agenda as "Rescission of Brown Act Commitment." You will be provided with <br />written notice, sent by any means or media you direct in response to this letter, to whatever <br />address or addresses you specify, of any intention of the City Council to consider rescinding this <br />commitment at least 30 days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this commitment <br />is rescinded, you will have the right to initiate legal action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section <br />54960 of the Government Code. That notice will be delivered to you by the same means as this <br />commitment, or may be mailed to an address that you have designated in writing.