I. CLOSED SESSION
2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 subd.(d)(1); Eel River Disposal and Resource Recovery, Inc. v. County of Humboldt; Humboldt County Superior Court Case No. CV110352.
The litigation mentioned in I 2 is not existing, it had a final decision and ruling. If it is to be discussed, it should be during open session, Ms. Jackson told me.
When it came to closed session, County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said "There was no need for item # 2." No other reason was given. When asked for a reason, Chair Bohn did not respond except to say that they were in closed session. Vice-Chair Fennell asked County Counsel to respond, Ms. Chaitin responded with the same "There is no need". She further added that "Whether it will be brought back later or not" is not something that would be determined at the current time.
This is the second time I have observed County Counsel be defensive when called on legal matters. County Counsel is supposed to watch out for the legal interests of the County. I think the public deserves a response.
Ms. Jackson just did a favor for the Board of Supervisors.
I am not aware if the other Supervisors were given copies of the letter. Traci D'Amico, deputy clerk of the. Board of Supervisors, was handed the letters given to Rex and Estelle sometime this morning before closed session.
I would like to personally thank Supervisor Fennell for her diligence in transparency. In her letter, Ms Jackson informed the Board of reasons that item #2 was "improperly agendized" and that discussion of it would be a violation of the Brown Act.
In her letter, Ms. Jackson cites Government Code section 54956.9 subd (d) (1)stating that any other action that the Board wishes to take concerning the final order after hearing of both the trial and apellate courts must take place in open session and after being properly agendized.
Ms. Jackson states in her letter that "closed sessions are forbidden by the Brown Act unless they are expressly authorized under the Act. The Act's provisions authorizing closed sessions are construed
narrowly by the courts due to Proposition 59, passed by the voters in November 2004. Under the "pending Litigation" exception, only matters "actually pending" may be taken up in closed session and then only a discussion of issues is permissible where discussion of those issues in open session would prejudice the agency's position in the litigation.
Ms. Jackson said, There is nothing 'pending' regarding this lawsuit. The litigation has been concluded. The litigation has been concluded. There is no appeal or reconsideration available to the County. There is only compliance with the Court's order. The Board must comply with the Order. Any discussion regrading compliance with that Order must take place in open session since there is nothing left pending in the litigation since the litigation has concluded.
When it came to closed session, County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said "There was no need for item # 2." No other reason was given. When asked for a reason, Chair Bohn did not respond except to say that they were in closed session. Vice-Chair Fennell asked County Counsel to respond, Ms. Chaitin responded with the same "There is no need". She further added that "Whether it will be brought back later or not" is not something that would be determined at the current time.
This is the second time I have observed County Counsel be defensive when called on legal matters. County Counsel is supposed to watch out for the legal interests of the County. I think the public deserves a response.
Ms. Jackson just did a favor for the Board of Supervisors.
I am not aware if the other Supervisors were given copies of the letter. Traci D'Amico, deputy clerk of the. Board of Supervisors, was handed the letters given to Rex and Estelle sometime this morning before closed session.
I would like to personally thank Supervisor Fennell for her diligence in transparency. In her letter, Ms Jackson informed the Board of reasons that item #2 was "improperly agendized" and that discussion of it would be a violation of the Brown Act.
In her letter, Ms. Jackson cites Government Code section 54956.9 subd (d) (1)stating that any other action that the Board wishes to take concerning the final order after hearing of both the trial and apellate courts must take place in open session and after being properly agendized.
Ms. Jackson states in her letter that "closed sessions are forbidden by the Brown Act unless they are expressly authorized under the Act. The Act's provisions authorizing closed sessions are construed
narrowly by the courts due to Proposition 59, passed by the voters in November 2004. Under the "pending Litigation" exception, only matters "actually pending" may be taken up in closed session and then only a discussion of issues is permissible where discussion of those issues in open session would prejudice the agency's position in the litigation.
Ms. Jackson said, There is nothing 'pending' regarding this lawsuit. The litigation has been concluded. The litigation has been concluded. There is no appeal or reconsideration available to the County. There is only compliance with the Court's order. The Board must comply with the Order. Any discussion regrading compliance with that Order must take place in open session since there is nothing left pending in the litigation since the litigation has concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.