Ojai council delays closed-session waiver decision, agrees to reschedule with notice

Ojai City Council members debated on whether to waive closed-session privilege so the council could consider participating in a pending court matter and decided to reschedule the closed session to allow an absent member to attend and provide more public notice.

Council members spent the meeting reviewing procedures for waiving closed-session privilege and asking the city attorney for legal advice about the process. City Attorney Mister Summers advised that “If the consideration is to waive privilege on a closed session, I recommend discussing that in closed session first.” The council did not take a formal vote to waive privilege at the special meeting.

The issue under discussion involved whether the city should participate in or otherwise register a position in a pending case referred to in the meeting as the Venskus case and related court deadlines. Council members said there was a deadline “running Monday” that created urgency if the council wanted to participate; the city attorney said extensions could sometimes be requested from the Court of Appeal but could not be guaranteed.

Council members raised procedural concerns about the notice and scheduling of the special closed session. One council member said the meeting had been posted on short notice (24½ hours) and described that timing as contributing to a perception of secrecy. Multiple members agreed it would be inappropriate to proceed without Council Member Kim Mang present; the council directed staff to reschedule and to include, as a separate agenda item, consideration of whether to waive privilege so the council could later decide whether to make portions public.

Council members also discussed the process for asking the city attorney to recuse. The city attorney said recusal would require a majority direction in closed session. No formal recusal action was taken at the meeting.

A Zoom participant who identified as Starchild urged the council to avoid using closed sessions where not necessary and asked that any rescheduled meeting be noticed with more than 24 hours’ notice. City staff said they would re-notice the item and coordinate dates by email so that all council members could reply with availability.

For now, the council’s next step is administrative: staff will poll members for dates and re-notice a closed session item that would include explicit language about potential waiver of privilege and any related open-session agenda items the council directs. No final decision about waiving closed-session privilege or participating in the referenced litigation was made at the special meeting.

The discussion included repeated procedural clarifications: whether the council could selectively waive privilege on particular statements or must waive privilege wholesale; whether two council members setting a special meeting is lawful under the city’s protocols; and whether prior pledges about limiting “safe harbor” use remain binding. The city attorney stated the closed-session agenda language complied with safe-harbor notice requirements and that the item had been lawfully placed on the agenda.

Meeting participants requested clearer notice for the rescheduled session so members of the public could attend and submit written comments; staff agreed to provide scheduling options by email and to re-notice once a date is selected. No formal motions or votes to waive privilege, to recuse the city attorney, or to join the litigation were recorded during the session.