Tulare: Suit brought over alleged violations of open meeting and public records laws

Eight Tulare citizens filed suit over actions by the city council who met twice in closed session to discuss the city manager’s complaints against a councilman. The lawsuit holds among other things that the closed session did not meet conditions of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, for holding a closed session. -db

June 17, 2010
By Luis Hernandez

A lawsuit has been filed claiming Tulare city officials violated open meeting and public records laws.

Visalia-based attorney Michael Lampe, on behalf of eight Tulare residents, filed the suit this week in Tulare County Superior Court. It seeks the release of documents and a judge’s order on previous closed session meetings by the Tulare City Council and City Manager Darrel Pyle.

The lawsuit claims city officials violated California’s open meeting laws, known collectively as the Brown Act.

Brown Act violations occurred when council members twice met in closed session to discuss hostile work environment complaints made by Tulare City Manager Darrel Pyle against Councilman Wayne Ross, the lawsuit claims. Ross and fellow councilman David Macedo, also named in Pyle’s complaint, were asked to leave the closed session prior to the April 20 and May 18 council meetings, the lawsuit claims.

The rest of the closed session meetings, according to the lawsuit, were held in violation of the Brown Act because:

•The description for the items to be discussed didn’t comply with the law’s guidelines.

•There were no existing facts and circumstances to justify the holding of a closed session.

•There was no reasonable legal advice given about significant exposure to litigation against the city.

Pyle defended the closed session agenda items, saying Tulare’s chief deputy clerk is experienced and the city attorney’s office carefully reviewed the items before being published.

“We’ll defend our position,” he said. “We’ll defend the council and the city as an organization.”

The lawsuit names the council and city as defendants. Pyle said he hopes only one attorney firm is hired to defend the suit.

“It would be a better-coordinated effort,” he said.

Complaints

Neither side has released specifics about Pyle’s complaints about Ross and Macedo creating a hostile work environment. It is unknown what either councilman is accused of saying or doing. Although a public document hasn’t been released, Lampe said he believes neither council members were found to be at fault.

It’s that report, among others, Lampe has previously requested. The city’s denial to release those documents, in part, prompted the lawsuit, which claims a Public Records Act violation.

According to the lawsuit, Lampe requested all documents prepared in connection with the investigation, including bills charged by special counsel hired to deal with this matter. Lampe said he received the bill, but the investigative report, according to city staff, couldn’t be provided because the city wasn’t in possession of it.

According to the lawsuit, not being in possession of the report violated the spirit and express provisions of the Public Records Act.

Lampe, according to the suit, also sought:

•E-mails written by Pyle suggesting the city might initiate legal action against City Attorney Steve Kabot.

•E-mails of other writings sent to Pyle by council members expressing concerns that matters were being discussed in closed session that should be discussed in open session.

City staff admitted such documents existed, but didn’t provide them because they believed they were exempt, according to the suit. But Lampe said the documents aren’t exempt from disclosure, according to government codes.

Pyle said Lampe’s request can’t be met.

“It’s hard to give things we don’t have,” he said.

As for the communication requested, Pyle said the city attorney’s office has already deemed those attorney-client privileged material and not subject to disclosure.

The suit seeks an order to compel city staff to produce the documents.

“We believe in the legal system and we’ll live with the outcome,” Pyle said. “It’ll go through the process.”

Plaintiffs

Among others, former Tulare Mayor Thomas Drilling and local dairyman Bud Mouw are listed as plaintiffs. They are joined by Brent Sparlin, Tony Nunes III, David Phelps, Doe Clark and John and Joyce Lampe.

During the public comment portion, Drilling and Mouw spoke out in opposition of the proposed Tulare Motor Sports Complex, a project Macedo and Ross have voted against.

Lampe, who represented Ross, also previously addressed council members to state his opposition to the project.

Copyright 2010 Gannatt