Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxnard councilmembers press to review withheld landscape-maintenance audit in closed session
Summary
Residents and at least two councilmembers raised concerns about a landscape maintenance-district audit paid for by the city in 2016, portions of which were withheld from the public. Councilmembers asked that the new council review the confidential audit in closed session to decide whether any material may be released.
Several councilmembers and a speaker at the Jan. 7 Oxnard City Council meeting urged review of a landscape maintenance district (LMD) audit that earlier staff withheld from public release.
Resident and frequent commenter Doug Portillo asked the council to release a 2016 audit of the city—s landscape-maintenance districts, saying the public paid $25,000 for the review and had not received the full report. Portillo said portions of the audit were withheld at the time because staff cited litigation risk.
Councilmember Bert Perillo and others recalled that an earlier attempt to release the audit was considered in January 2018; a motion to release the material failed on a 2-to-3 roll-call at that time after a closed-session vote. City Attorney remarks at the Jan. 7 meeting repeated that attorney-client privilege was the stated reason the document remained confidential in the past.
Councilmember Aaron Starr and other councilmembers said the new seven-member council should see the full audit in closed session so the body can decide whether any of the material can be made public. Starr asked the mayor to place the audit review on a future closed-session agenda so all current members could examine the report. The city attorney and others said the established process for scheduling future agenda items should be followed and noted that the item may be appropriate for the Finance and Governance Committee or for a closed session if the council so directs in the proper forum.
No formal vote to release the audit or to add it to a closed-session agenda occurred on Jan. 7. The clerk advised that a council member may either announce a future-agenda request during council reports or submit a detailed written request to the clerk; the item will be referred to the appropriate council committee unless mayor and mayor pro tem decide otherwise.
Ending: Councilmembers said they will pursue the procedural steps required to get the audit before the new council in closed session for review; staff will advise how the document was handled in the past so the council can determine whether and what material could be released.
