Council decides not to launch investigation into leaks in closed sessions

The most intense part was saved for last at last week’s City Council meeting with discussion item 16c, a motion by Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick to direct the City Attorney to resubmit a proposal for an investigation into recent leaks of confidential information disclosed during closed sessions and subsequent punishment of anyone caught.

Although the Council ultimately made a unanimous decision, it came only after a heated debate with competing motions and some confusion about what exactly was being approved.

The Brown Act allows municipalities to hold discussions outside of the public eye, typically including real estate negotiations, employee matters, and discussions with attorneys about legal issues. These are known as closed session agenda items. The law also allows the council to disclose information beyond established legal requirements, but doing so requires a specific direction and vote from the council. Any open discussion of items discussed in closed sessions without prior authorization is a violation.

This is not the first time the City Council has faced this controversy. An investigation into the leaks was already discussed several years ago after René Bobadilla was announced as the first candidate for the then-vacant position of City Manager.

In response to more recent, unidentified leaks, Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick had asked the City Attorney to submit a proposal to ensure that the City’s ethics rules apply to Councilmembers, a proposal to open an investigation into recent leaks of confidential information disclosed in closed session, and one or more proposals to penalize Councilmembers and staff who inappropriately leak confidential information in closed session.

“When I discussed this matter with the city attorney, I was informed that while the city has ethics rules that apply to each of its employees, those six rules do not apply to council members. And I believe the city attorney has actually drafted a proposal that he can resubmit to make the city’s ethics rules apply not only to employees, but to council members as well,” Davis said.

Council member Christine Parra, who was instrumental in the initiative for not to conduct an investigation from the outset, asked how much such an investigation might cost. “I think the last time we did this exercise, the estimates were about $150,000 to $200,000, which happens to be the same amount that would pay a police officer’s salary for an entire year,” she said.

“In some ways, integrity comes at a cost,” Davis responded, adding, “If we have people violating the Brown Act, we have to at least think about starting an investigation to find out who is doing it.” She guessed the cost would likely come out of the general fund, but that would be sorted out once the city came back with a proposal.

City Attorney Doug Sloan said such a violation carries federal consequences, potentially including criminal prosecution, an injunction and the payment of attorney fees, but that the city must launch an investigation before anything else can be considered.

Parra reiterated that while it is “of the utmost importance” not to publicly discuss confidential information discussed in closed sessions, she also reminded everyone in the room that this is an election year.

“With this being an election year, this agenda item is no surprise. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money and resources,” she said. “It is also paramount that established council rules are followed to ensure good governance and transparency. However, some on the council feel these rules do not apply to them, as evidenced by repeated violations.

“There is no doubt that leaking confidential information during a closed session is unacceptable. There is no doubt that. But to weaponize the Attorney General’s office for political purposes is absolutely disgusting,” she said.

She referred to an incident where there was a recent City Council candidate debate hosted by the Democratic Club, and this very topic was one of the questions to the candidates, but this particular 16th item had not yet been put on the agenda.

“While I may be making assumptions, this is not the first time the liberal minority has abused this body for political purposes,” she said. “If we are truly committed to truth and justice, why don’t we instruct the DA to bypass the investigation and come back with a proposal on how to deal with future violations and what the remedy might be. But let’s just fix the process.”

The heated discussion continued, mainly between Parra and Davis. Zwick interjected that there are indeed penalties and that all that remains is to find out who exactly committed the rule violation, but Parra again insisted that this was akin to a witch hunt.

Parra made a motion to direct the city to develop a proposal to revise council rules to include penalties for repeat offenders and a proposal to deal with repeat offenders. However, her motion did not include an investigation into leaks that have already occurred.

Sloan said he actually drafted something along those lines about 18 months ago, so he offered to include it in the proposal. Tempers flared as confusion arose over what exactly was being voted on. Parra’s idea was rejected without a vote, and a replacement motion was put forward with adjustments that included studying the cost and feasibility of an actual study. However, that motion too was defeated on a 3-3 tie vote for political reasons. (Council member Oscar de la Torre was absent.)

Ultimately, Davis’ motion was passed unanimously with 6:0 votes, Zwick supported it and is structured as follows:

• Instruct the city attorney to come back with a proposal that ensures that the city’s ethics rules also apply to council members.
• Direct the City Attorney to resubmit a proposal on how to handle future confirmed leaks of information from closed meetings and what remedial action could be taken.
• Direct the City Attorney to resubmit a proposal to amend Council rules to include disciplinary action or penalties for repeat violations.
• Direct the City Attorney to resubmit a proposal for dealing with repeat violations of the Brown Act, including disciplinary action or penalties.

[email protected]

Related