The councilmen are tired and want the late-night business to stop
CITY HALL — Two council-men have filed a lawsuit against their own City Council in an effort to put a curfew on late-night meetings.
Councilmen Bob Holbrook and Herb Katz officially served the suit in February, claiming the public doesn’t have fair access because meetings run into the early morning hours. It’s not reasonable to expect citizens to be part of the debate past midnight, they say.
The suit, which claims that late meetings are a violation of the state’s open meetings law, seeks to prohibit City Council meetings from going past 11 p.m.
Katz and Holbrook first threatened the lawsuit in January of 2002. They were told by their colleagues then that a concerted effort would be made to wrap up the meetings earlier. But since then, 24 out of 49 meetings have run past midnight, with many of them ending at 2 a.m. or later.
“It’s not right for anybody,” Katz said, adding citizens are deterred from speaking publicly because of the late hour. “City workers, some of them department heads, have to stay late and then they come in late the next day and the public suffers.”
Mayor Richard Bloom said he’s disappointed with his colleagues for the way they’re handling the matter and the lawsuit is a poor attempt in bullying the council. He added that not only is the lawsuit a waste of time and energy, but also a waste of taxpayers’ money.
“I think it’s sad to take city resources to fight it,” he said. “It’s silly and has no merit.”
Bloom said when the issue came up a year and a half ago, he’s the one who put it on the agenda for discussion — not Katz or Holbrook.
“They know how to discuss these issues and they know how to agendize an item,” he said. “They also know how to politicize an issue, it’s an election year.
“They know how to discuss these issues and they know how to agendize an item. They also know how to politicize an issue, it’s an election year.” — – RICHARD BLOOM Mayor
“They need to do this in a respectful way with their colleagues,” Bloom added.
Katz said his goal is to make the City Council meetings end at a reasonable hour.
“Bob and I are not interested in hurting the city or costing it any money,” he said. “We just want it under control.”
The City Council met last week in a closed session regarding the suit, but Holbrook and Katz weren’t allowed to be part of the discussion because of conflicts of interest. They find themselves in a precarious position — the entity they serve on is being sued but they can’t discuss litigation because they’re the plaintiffs.
“It’s the weirdest thing,” Katz said. City Hall filed a motion to dismiss the suit a week ago — arguing Katz and Holbrook are attempting to stifle public participation. Called an anti-SLAPP motion, the argument is based on a law that protects people who are being prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights.
“The lawsuit chills and otherwise tramples on cherished democratic values to allow governmental officials and the public to speak openly and freely to one another at public meetings,” the city’s motion states. “The lawsuit arbitrarily wants to cut off public debate in order to fit into its notion of someone’s bedtime...
“When the City Council conducts public meetings, when it listens to and discusses public matters with the public and when it holds open debate on matters of public interest, no matter what time of day or night, the City Council is both participating in and embracing their First Amendment rights.”
The City Council, which meets every other Tuesday — and sometimes more frequently — is a victim of its own success because it’s so adamant that people express their opinions that it allows public comment on not only agenda items, but other issues as well. Other governing bodies, like the Los Angeles City Council, don’t take public comment at all, officials have pointed out in the past.
But what’s at issue for Katz and Holbrook is that because the meetings run so late, fewer people stay in Council Chambers to speak.
“As a direct and proximate result of holding City Council meetings at unreasonable late night hours and under such unreasonable circumstances, the later part of the City Council meetings are not open and public,” the suit says. “Plaintiffs and petitioners, and the general public, are being denied their right to attend meetings, address their elected representatives and take an active part in open government... members of the public cannot be expected to stay up until such hours to address their legislature.”
But City Hall’s attorneys argue that the City Council actually goes above the call of duty in honoring the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, which is designed to encourage open and public debate.
“Often the public appears in such numbers that their comments alone take several hours for the City Council to hear,” the motion states, adding the suit is an “abuse of the judicial process.” “What the lawsuit fails to appreciate is that there are democratic values that this state considers more important than a public meeting that ends before 11 p.m.”
Santa Monica attorney Rosario Perry, who is representing Katz and Holbrook pro bono, said the suit is seeking an injunction that would prevent the meetings to go past 11 p.m. The case will be heard by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffee in downtown LA on March 30. It’s unclear what would happen if Judge Yaffee grants the injunction.
“Anything beyond 11 p.m. could be void or they could be penalized,” Perry surmised.
Santa Monica is a complex city and therefore has countless issues that come before the council, which contributes to the lengthy meetings, officials say.
It’s up to the city manager, the mayor and the mayor pro tem to set the agenda. But putting less on each agenda would require more meetings — possibly weekly — which takes more staff time and more commitment from elected officials.
Some argue if council members used their time more wisely — like spending less time pontificating — they would finish earlier.
“These guys just go on and on,” Perry said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 15, 2004. Read the original PDF.