City says no Brown Act violation
By Anonymous — Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010
Submitted by the City of Fillmore Despite efforts by City Attorney Ted Schneider to amicably resolve McKee’s current ultimatum, including offering to submit McKee’s question at the City's cost to the California Attorney General for an opinion, McKee changed his mind and withdrew his offer of settlement in favor of pursuing costly litigation. McKee’s attorney, Kelly Aviles, informs the City that McKee has instructed her to file yet another lawsuit against the City of Fillmore. As Schneider explained during his 90-minute Brown Act Workshop for the Fillmore City Council on December 9, 2009, no violation of the Brown Act occurred on November 24. The settlement agreement, to which McKee was a party, expressly provided that the court retained jurisdiction in the case to enforce the terms of the agreement. Prior to convening the closed session, the agenda was posted and it was publicly announced that the City Council would be meeting solely for the purpose of deliberating compliance with the terms of the prior settlement agreement. In Schneider's written response to McKee's December 3, 2009 demand letter, he quoted from Government Code Section 54956.9 that the Brown Act should not be used to "prevent a legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive advice from its legal counsel regarding pending litigation…" Fillmore City Manager Yvonne Quiring said, "With California's statewide budget cuts challenging all communities to do more with less, it is especially disheartening to see this continued allegation and litigation." |