HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/08/02 Item (2) COUNCIL CONFERENCE
AGENDA STATEMENT Item
Meeting Date 8/2/84
ITEM TITLE : Resolution//4,W- Opposing SB 2216 Limiting the Right to Go into
Executive Session on Litigation
SUBMITTED BY : City Atto � (4/5ths Vote: Yes NoX )
SB 2216 (Keene) would place unnecessary and potentially harmful restrictions on
the City's right to confer with its attorney with regard to litigation in
closed session. The proposed resolution would authorize the Mayor to voice the
City's opposition to this bill.
RECOMMIELNDATION: Adopt the resolution
BOARD/COMMISSION RECCM4ENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
SB 2216 is an atttempt on the part of its proponents to place the attorney-
client "litigation" exception to the public meeting law into the Brown Act. It
will be heard before the Assembly Committee on coral Government on August 8,
1984. This exception is the result of case law and particularly the case of
Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento 263 C.A.2d 41. While this bill would
put the litigation exception into the statute, it would at the same time
restrict the exception in such a way that it can be very harmful to cities.
The Sacramento case spelled out the right of a city council to meet with its
attorney in closed session and also placed limitations on this right at the
same time. A city may not arbitrarily or unnecessarily inflate confidentiality
for the purpose of deflating the spread of the public meeting law. An attor-
ney's presence may not serve as the pretext for secret consultations whose
revelation will not injure the public interest. In attempting to place this
exception into the statute, the author has placed doubt on the ability of a
city council to meet with its city attorney where litigation has not been filed
against the City, but there is some threat that it could be. The law would
limit such a discussion to the situation where litigation is "imminent" in the
reasonable opinion of the legislative body. There are many situations where we
learn of cities getting into trouble and seek to avoid the same problems in
Chula Vista. For example, there are occasions where ordinances we have are
found to be unconstitutional in litigation involving other cities. We do not
want to advertise this fact to the general public because to do so would be to
invite the same litigation. Therefore, it is appropriate under the Sacramento
case to meet in executive session for the purpose of litigation avoidance.
The law as established by the cases is presently clear and there are con-
straints an any potential abuse of the attorney-client privilege. The proposed
law is not only ambiguous, but potentially harmful to the cities and should be
opposed on that basis.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A f f
•
G \,
Form A-113C (11/79)
Dated
L.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT FORM
IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED by the undersigned that the following
item, with the unanimous consent of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, be considered and acted upon by the Council pursuant
to the provisions of Sec.2. 04 .090 of the Chula Vista City Code .
Resolution - Opposing SB 2216 Limiting the Right to Go Into
Executive Session on Litigation
(Signature)
Unanimous Consent of the City Council, as i dicated b the following
signatures :
' C/I
•
• 277 t
, egzut&g,
•
o 7/7zo
CA-301
The following telegraph should be sent to:
Chairman Dominic Cortese
Assembly Committee on Local Government
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA.
The City of Chula Vista strongly opposes enactment of SB2216
and urges you to vote against the bill on August 8, 1984 .when
it is heard before your Committee. This bill would signifi-
cantly restrict the City Council's ability to avoid litigation
for the public. A closed session for the purpose of considering
threatened litigation contingent upon action of the Council is
absolutely essential. The public's adversaries must be ex-
clused from such attorney/client conferences if the public's
legal rights are to be protected. Restriction of the public
agency 's right to confer with its attorney concerning proposed
or anticipated litigation only provides the public's adversaries
with a distinct and unfair advantage in litigation. To the
extent that litigation which could have been avoided by such
closed session attorney/client conferences is not avoided, the
unnecessary cost of such litigation will be borne by the public.
The City Council of Chula Vista urges you to reject SB2216 .
Gregory R. Cox
Mayor
cc: Members of the Assembly Committee on Local Government:
Steve Clute (Vice Chairman)
Bill Bradley
Sam Farr
William Filante
Robert Frazee
Dan Hauser
Lucy Killea
Don Sebastiani
C