Judge to decide fate of lawsuit over council hours
CITY HALL — A lawsuit levied against City Hall by two elected politicians who complain City Council meetings run too long and discourage public input lacks merit and may be tossed out of court, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe said he will consider letting City Councilmen Bob Holbrook and Herb Katz amend their lawsuit, but not until he reviews a request from City Hall to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.
A decision is expected in the next few days.
Half of the last 50 City Council meetings have run past midnight, with some going until 2 a.m. or later. Many meetings were prolonged when dozens of speakers turned out to address particular hot-button items, like funding for schools or the approved homeless shelter at Cloverfield Boulevard and Michigan Avenue.
While some officials have suggested the lawsuit is politically motivated in an election year, Holbrook said long meetings are unfair to public speakers who want to address issues not on the agenda because — by design — they speak last.
“The reason that Herb and I did this wasn’t because I watch our colleagues fall asleep (on the dais). It wasn’t because I’ve seen chief staff members asleep at their desks. It was because of the public. I’ve seen members of the public grow frustrated, give up and go home before they speak,” Holbrook said.
“I’ve seen members of the public grow frustrated, give up and go home before they speak.” — — BOB HOLBROOK City Councilman
“I just think that — in extraordinary circumstances — we should go until midnight, and then come back the next night,” he added.
Rosario Perry, a local attorney who is representing the councilmen, said he can prove City Hall officials intentionally limit public input by putting it last on their meeting agendas. The lawsuit claims that hearing public input at the end of the meeting is illegal because most people aren’t willing to wait into the night and early morning to speak. It doesn’t allege that the City Manager and Mayor — who are charged with setting the agenda — intentionally schedule it that way.
“Any time a meeting goes until one or two in the morning, it’s not a public meeting,” said Perry, who is working on the case pro bono.
Holbrook said City Hall should look at other cities like Redondo Beach, where public input on some items is limited to 30 or 40 minutes. But more importantly, an attitude adjustment is needed, he added. “(We need to) try and somehow change this culture where people think, even on a routine matter... 30 or 40 people show up, because they’ve been told that’s how you get the result you want,” Holbrook said.
Holbrook also suggested that perhaps the council should follow the lead of the school board, which hears some public comment at the beginning of its meetings.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence, who is arguing the case for City Hall, said Holbrook and Katz both voted on Feb. 24 to approve the current council guidelines, which govern how the meetings are scheduled.
“They voted in favor of the rules that they now say they don’t like,” Lawrence said. “And they, as of last week, at least Herb, voted to extend the meeting they now say they don’t want to extend.”
The council must approve by vote to extend a meeting if it goes beyond 11 p.m., which was the case last week.
What’s more, City Hall lawyers argued Santa Monica goes far beyond what’s required to accommodate public input and added that cutting off the meetings at 11 p.m. would only serve to further stifle public input.
Lawrence on Tuesday convinced Judge Yaffee not to immediately allow the coun-cilmen to submit an amended lawsuit, as he had tentatively decided to do. Instead, Lawrence pointed to a court of appeals ruling that he said requires the court to consider City Hall’s motion to dismiss the case first.
“He was clearly not impressed with the lawsuit,” Lawrence said.
Called an anti-SLAPP motion, City Hall’s argument is based on a law that protects people who are being prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights. If the SLAPP motion is granted, the lawsuit would be automatically dismissed and City Hall could pursue Holbrook and Katz for lawyer fees.
The City Council discussed the lawsuit in closed session last week, but Holbrook and Katz weren’t allowed to be part of the discussion. They find themselves in a precarious position — the entity they serve on is being sued, but they can’t discuss the litigation because they’re the plaintiffs.
Lawrence declined to say what has been discussed in the closed session meetings. Perry said no offer has been made to change the meetings.
“Nothing, nothing,” Perry said. “They don’t want to change a thing.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 31, 2004. Read the original PDF.