Ojai council approves closed-session agenda as residents debate indemnifying councilmember and amicus brief

The Ojai City Council approved a motion to adjourn into closed session and heard public comment urging the council to indemnify Councilmember Leslie Ruhl and to reject joining as amicus in ongoing litigation.

The council voted, by roll call, to approve the closed-session agenda. The motion passed with Mayor Gilman, Mayor Pro Tem Lang, Councilmember Wittman, Councilmember Ruhl and Councilmember Meng recorded as voting yes.

Public commenters addressed two closed-session items that were not publicly explained. A commenter identifying as Starchild asked the council to "indemnify Leslie Ruehl" and said indemnity "helps preserve that belief and that faith," arguing that indemnification encourages people to run for office and speak freely. Another commenter, Renee Roth, urged the council not to file an amicus brief supporting the Byrne v. Ruhl lawsuit, calling it "a frivolous attempt to further intimidate and silence those who speak out." Roth later resumed her remarks and told the council that "California code 8 25 does provide for the city council to indemnify Leslie rule" and argued that refusing indemnity could be "an act of bad faith."

Councilmember Ruhl directly addressed the public remarks during the comment period, saying, "The Superior Court of California found that I did not break the law." Other public speakers referenced the Becker project and expressed concern about closed-session topics that had previously been discussed in January.

Speakers also asked the council to disclose documents referenced in the litigation, including a "minor letter" and communications between the city and a law firm identified in public comments as Myers. One commenter said they had read letters related to the litigation and warned that broad confidentiality could limit what local news outlets and residents may legally repeat.

The council did not make a public decision on indemnification or on whether to join as amicus during the public comment period; after the public comment portion closed the council adjourned to the announced closed session. The agenda item notice identified two closed-session matters but did not disclose details to attendees during the meeting.

No formal city action on indemnification or the amicus brief was recorded in the public portion of the meeting. The closed session, by definition, allows the council to consider confidential legal matters behind closed doors; any final actions or staff directions concerning indemnity or litigation would appear in future public minutes or disclosures if required by law.