First District Councilmember Sherri Lightner was elected Tuesday as City Council president in a 6-1 re-vote after the Council was told the re-vote was necessary to “cure” violations of the Brown Act that alleged some councilmembers met secretly to oust Todd Gloria as Council president.
The re-vote was held following the 7-2 vote on Dec. 10 when all four Republican councilmembers voted to support Lightner after Gloria could not get five votes for a third term as Council president after Lightner voted against him.
“By taking this action today, the Council removes the need for determining whether a Brown Act violation in fact took place,” said Assistant City Attorney Paul Cooper before the re-vote took place.
“After the (Dec. 10) vote, the City Attorney’s office received specific but unsubstantiated information from KNSD(Channel 39) reporter Wendy Fry that, if true, would constitute a violation of the Brown Act in that a majority of the Council would have discussed a pending vote in a serial meeting,” Cooper told the Council.
“Based on a review of this information, our office decided to hold the resolution on Dec. 10 … for a re-vote,” said Cooper. “The Brown Act permits the legislative body…to cure or correct the action.”
“The fact the legislative body takes corrective action is not an admission of a violation,” said Cooper. “This remedy reflects the reality of the circumstance. There is no ability to eliminate past discussions amongst councilmembers.”
Lightner told the Council she docketed the re-vote “in abundance of caution” after saying “there are concerns raised about potential Brown Act violations among councilmembers who may have discussed the Council President vote in advance of the hearing last Wednesday.”
“The re-vote on the Council president is the cure provided by the Brown Act that was recommended by the City Attorney’s office,” said Lightner. “This action will quickly and simply address any concerns.”
Lightner announced the City Attorney’s office “has offered to hold a refresher training on the Brown Act for all councilmembers” in 2015.
Fourth District Councilmember Myrtle Cole made the motion to elect Lightner, which was seconded by 7th District Councilmember Scott Sherman. Gloria cast the lone dissenting vote against Lightner. Councilmembers David Alvarez and Marti Emerald were absent.
The Council also voted 7-0 to elect Emerald as president pro-tem and she will preside if Lightner is absent. They also voted 7-0 to approve Lightner’s choices of City Council committee chairpersons that were previously named by Gloria except for one change.
Lightner named Cole to head the Economic Development & Intergovernmental Relations Committee which Lightner formerly ran for several years. Lightner named herself as chairperson for the new Charter Review Committee.
Emerald will chair the Public Safety & Livable Neighborhoods Committee. Gloria will continue to chair the Budget & Government Efficiency Committee. Second District Councilmember Lorie Zapf continues to chair the Smart Growth & Land Use Committee.
Fifth District Councilmember Mark Kersey will continue to chair the Infrastructure Committee and Sherman will return as chair of the Audit Committee. Newly elected Sixth District Councilmember Chris Cate will serve as vice chairs on three committees.
The re-vote was the last Council meeting of the year and the next meeting is set for Jan. 13.
If there was an unlawful serial meeting (in which a majority of the council persuaded one another to elect her) then doing the already-decided vote in public would not correct the violation. An adequate correction would have to be a disclosure of who said what to whom, and when. Otherwise every secret decision could be “corrected” by simply a public ratification of the done deal. Mr. Cooper’s view that a public vote moots the question of whether there ever was a violation conveniently justifies the City Attorney’s decision not to investigate the facts.
Is your theory concerning what an “adequate correction would have been” based on something in the Brown Act or the cases interpreting it? I understand the view that a revote doesesn’t seem “adequate” but it is what the Brown Act proscribes as a remedy (or at the least the cases that have addressed the issue).