Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Council Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ojai council ends closed session without reportable action as indemnification dispute resurfaces
Summary
After a closed session on litigation, the City of Ojai council reported no reportable action. Several council members and members of the public challenged the council's handling of indemnification and closed-session participation related to ongoing litigation involving Councilmember Leslie Ruehl.
The City of Ojai City Council concluded a closed session on pending litigation and announced no reportable action was taken.
The council’s brief public statement said the body had “considered item number 1 regarding inducing litigation” and provided comments to staff and council but took no reportable action; a second item on initiation of litigation was continued to a future meeting. Mayor pro tem and council members then took roll call and reopened the meeting.
Why it matters: public commenters and at least one council member pressed for clarity over recent closed-session practice, whether votes in closed session are reportable, and the council’s approach to indemnifying Councilmember Leslie Ruehl in litigation described repeatedly by residents.
During public comment a number of residents said they were frustrated the indemnification issue remained unresolved and argued the matter consumes staff time and taxpayer money. One speaker asked how much the city has spent on outside counsel and how many closed sessions had been used on the dispute, and another urged the council to resolve the issue publicly so districts are represented in private deliberations.
Councilmember Leslie Ruehl, who addressed the body after the closed session, said she believed she had an unequivocal right to be in closed session and that conflicting legal advice had constrained her. Speakers during public comment repeatedly referenced a state Government Code provision on indemnification and a Fair Political Practices Commission (—FPPC—) advice letter. Several residents asked the council to act in public rather than continue repeated closed sessions on related legal matters.
The council did not take a formal vote on indemnification or other litigation items at the meeting; staff said one closed-session item was continued and that other items would be returned to the council at a later date.
Looking ahead: members of the public asked for a timetable for resolving indemnification and for the council to be transparent about outside counsel costs. The council did not adopt any changes to the closed-session procedure at the meeting.
