Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Closed Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reports closed‑session discussion of pending litigation; no action taken
Summary
The board met in closed session under the Bagley‑Keene rules to discuss pending litigation (Pacific Bell Company v. County of Napa et al.) and reported out that no action was taken.
The Board of Equalization convened a closed session to discuss pending litigation identified on its agenda: Pacific Bell Company et al. v. County of Napa et al. (Napa County Superior Court case number 23CB001211; Court of Appeal, First District case A170169). The board followed Bagley‑Keene notice procedures, invited public comment on the closed‑session item, and then recessed into closed session.
At reconvening, Kathy Taylor, Chief of Board Proceedings, reported out that the board had met in closed session, discussed litigation matters and that “no action was taken.” The board did not disclose deliberations protected under Government Code §11126(e).
Why it matters: closed sessions for pending litigation are standard for the board when litigation strategy is discussed; the public record shows the item was considered and no reportable action resulted.
Decision summary: closed‑session discussion only; no action taken as reported by the chief of board proceedings.
