Ojai City Council moves to closed session on whether to indemnify Council member Leslie Ruehl in Brown Act lawsuit

The Ojai City Council took public comment Tuesday and then adjourned into closed session to consider whether to reimburse Council member Leslie Ruehl for legal defense costs in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Brown Act.

Why it matters: The question of indemnification could determine who pays Ruehl’s legal bills and may itself trigger further litigation if the council refuses to pay. Speakers at the meeting argued that state law requires cities to provide defense in such cases and said the city has already spent substantial outside counsel fees on the matter.

During a public-comments period, resident Robin Gerber urged the council to “indemnify” Ruehl so that “public service is valued and protected,” and criticized what Gerber described as retaliatory conduct among council members. Gerber also asked who hired outside counsel and whether any council members have financial or other ties to that firm.

Resident Larry Steingold likewise urged the city to “settle it, get it done, and let’s move forward,” and asked the council to obtain an appraisal on a related property question before committing to a project. John Drucker, who identified himself as counsel to Council member Leslie Ruehl, told the council that an outside firm retained by the city had relied exclusively on “Government Code section 995.2A” and, in Drucker’s view, erred by not accounting for the statute’s definition of “specific conflict.” Drucker said that, because Ojai has no internal rule defining such conflicts, “the council is thus required to indemnify Leslie for all her costs in defending this case.”

Steven Johnson, who identified himself as Ruehl’s attorney of record, said he had successfully defended Ruehl in the underlying case and urged the council to reimburse her defense costs rather than risk higher overall expense. “The city will spend more defending an indefensible position than it will to simply fulfill its legal obligation without any further delay,” Johnson told the council, and said the city already paid about $80,000 to outside counsel to research the issue.

Council procedure: The council approved the meeting agenda by unanimous consent and then adjourned into closed session to discuss the alleged litigation and possible reimbursement for Ruehl. The transcript records the council’s move to closed session but contains no public vote on indemnification or any final decision; the council indicated it would return after the closed-session deliberation.

What was not decided: No public vote or final action on indemnification for Council member Ruehl is recorded in the transcript. Council members and staff indicated they would meet in closed session to discuss and vote on the matter.

Context and next steps: Commenters referenced past disputes and outside legal bills related to other matters; one speaker suggested the city could face greater costs if it refuses to indemnify Ruehl and the matter proceeds to further litigation. The council’s closed-session discussion and any vote, findings or reimbursement decisions were not included in the public portion of the record provided.