Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiation Of Litigation Closed Session topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific Grove council moves into closed session on initiation of litigation after resident objects to notice and asks for fee clarification
Summary
At a special meeting Aug. 20, the Pacific Grove City Council approved an agenda to hold a closed session to consider initiating litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4). A 91-year-old resident asked the council to postpone the closed session, saying public notice and fee information were inadequate; the city attorney responded with a
The Pacific Grove City Council on Aug. 20 voted to approve an agenda to convene a closed session to consider initiating litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4), then adjourned for that closed session.
A 91-year-old resident, identified in the meeting as Ms. Haines, asked the council to postpone the closed-session discussion, saying she “detrimentally relied on the public notice being adequate” and requesting a future meeting with 72 hours’ advance notice specifying which subdivision of the statute would apply. “Had I known that, I would likely have written different comments,” she said.
City Attorney Pierre responded at the public meeting that the agenda description—“initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9”—made clear the applicable subdivision is (d)(4), the subsection addressing when a legislative body has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. Pierre said subsection (g) allows the agency to announce the subdivision at the public meeting before entering closed session. “So the only remaining description in that subsection is 4,” he said.
Haines also raised questions about attorney fee figures the city had provided. Pierre said a public-records response dated Aug. 15 covered the period requested by Haines (October 2022 through August 2023) and showed roughly $15,000 in fees for that span. Pierre added that fees for an earlier period (July 2021 through July 2022) were $612,689.33. He said the larger figure covered dates before he was appointed city attorney in July 2022.
Before the closed-session adjournment, Councilmember Murillo moved to approve the agenda for the closed session; Councilmember Paduri seconded. The presiding officer called for a voice vote, saying, “All in favor, say aye.” The record shows the council then adjourned to closed session and planned to return at 6 p.m.
No formal action to initiate litigation was taken in public; the meeting moved into the closed session for which the agenda had been approved. The public commenter’s request to postpone was made on the record immediately before the council entered closed session, and the city attorney provided the statutory interpretation and the fee figures cited above.
The council’s public agenda listed a single item: “initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (d) — one potential case,” and the meeting record shows the council proceeded into closed session on that item after the public comment and brief staff clarification.
