Resident urges Woodland Hills to adopt formal code of conduct, lists alleged misconduct by officials

Maurice Rokovitz, a Woodland Hills resident, used the council’s public-comment period to urge the City Council to adopt a formal code of conduct and a censure process for public officials, appointees and employees, and to put his allegations on the public record.

“I am before you today to urge the adoption of a formal code of conduct and a mechanism for censuring public officials, appointees, and employees,” Rokovitz said, and later told the council he had “20,000 documents” he was prepared to share to support his claims.

Rokovitz told the council he believed former and current city employees and officials had acted illegally or unethically in multiple episodes over several years. Among his claims he said: a former council member was appointed to the building official role in violation of municipal code 9.1.1; a former building official, Corbett Stevens, unlawfully enforced or fabricated code provisions during the construction of Rokovitz’s home; a contractor allegedly abandoned the project leaving significant defects and costs that Rokovitz estimated at about $250,000; and that city leaders failed to hold staff or contractors accountable. Rokovitz also said he had been blocked from a private community Facebook page administered by local residents, which he described as censorship linked to city officials.

Council members and staff responded during the meeting. The mayor said he “certainly disagree[d] with almost everything” Rokovitz had alleged. City staff and several council members told Rokovitz they and outside offices have investigated some of his complaints. Staff said some items are the subject of ongoing litigation or review and that the city could not publicly discuss details while those matters are active.

Recorder Jody Stone and other staff described the city’s past and planned efforts to update policies. Staff noted the state’s recent House Bill 80 and related disclosure requirements (discussed earlier in the meeting) and said the city would post required conflict-of-interest and ethics disclosures for decision-making bodies on the city website.

Council members also described prior one-on-one meetings with Rokovitz and said staff had followed up on many of his concerns. Several council members said they are open to reviewing the city’s code-of-conduct language and that staff has received offers to assist with revisions; none of the council members moved to adopt new rules or a censure process on the spot.

Rokovitz asked the city to be explicit about whether city budget listings or other public documents include personally identifiable information (PII) that would violate the city’s own privacy policy. Staff and the mayor said they would review the documents he referenced and, if the city is out of compliance, make changes. At multiple points staff said they would “look into” the specific items Rokovitz raised and that some matters are subject to legal or personnel confidentiality.

Why it matters: Rokovitz framed his request as a call for consistent accountability and transparency in local government. Council members acknowledged the underlying questions about enforcement and about how the city communicates investigative outcomes to residents, but they also emphasized legal limits on what staff can disclose when personnel or litigation issues are involved.

The council did not adopt any ordinance, policy, or formal motion in response during the meeting. Several members said they would examine existing ethics and conduct policies and consider edits; staff said they will review the PII and disclosure concerns Rokovitz raised and report back.

Ending: Rokovitz concluded by saying he would continue to bring the issues to council meetings until he felt the city had addressed them. Council members repeated that they were willing to continue a civil dialogue and to have staff follow up. No formal council action was taken at the meeting on Rokovitz’s proposal for a separate censure process.