Oxnard councilmember waives closed-session participation; council votes to seek en banc review in campaign-finance case

Councilmember Aaron Starr told the Oxnard City Council on Dec. 30 that he would waive participation in a closed-session discussion of pending litigation involving the nonprofit Moving Oxnard Forward and the City of Oxnard.

Starr spoke at the meeting’s agenda item B‑1 and described the unusual position of being an officer of the plaintiff (Moving Oxnard Forward) while also serving as a city official. He told the council he reviewed the Political Reform Act and related guidance and concluded he had no distinct financial interest in the case. Starr said he was concerned, however, about becoming privy to privileged information in closed session that could later create ethics problems or give the appearance of sharing that information with outside counsel. “At this time I’m going to waive my right to participate in this matter in close session,” Starr said.

The city took public comment on the matter before recessing to closed session. Public commenters voiced a mix of views: some praised Starr’s decision to step aside, while others criticized his past litigation against the city. Chad Morgan, the attorney who represents Moving Oxnard Forward, said the litigation raises a policy question that, in his view, does not constitute the kind of financial conflict that requires forcing a recusal. Alicia Purcell, who identified herself as an officer of Moving Oxnard Forward, told the council the prior council’s actions targeted Starr and that litigation to date had overturned those actions.

After the public comment period, the council recessed to closed session under Government Code §54956.9 to discuss Moving Oxnard Forward v. Asuncion. Council members returned after the closed session and the city attorney announced the result: “By a unanimous vote of the council members present in closed session and noting, again from earlier that Councilman Starr did not participate in closed session, the city council has given its legal council approval to seek en banc review in the case of Moving Oxnard Forward versus Asuncion regarding the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits placed on the ballot by the City Council and adopted by the Oxnard voters,” the city attorney said.

The announcement did not specify a motion maker or a recorded roll-call vote in the open session, but the city attorney stated the action was unanimous among council members who participated in closed session. The council did not take an open-session vote on the question and no dollar amounts or outside costs for the en banc filing were specified during the announcement.

Council discussion earlier in the meeting referenced Government Code sections and FPPC guidance and noted that appearance-of-impropriety concerns can factor into a councilmember’s decision to recuse even where the law does not require it. Several commenters and council members referenced a prior FPPC advisory letter involving a Santa Monica councilmember with similar circumstances; Starr distributed a copy of that advisory letter to the council before the meeting.

The litigation under discussion concerns Measure B and limits on campaign contributions that a federal appellate panel found raised First Amendment questions. The council’s approval to seek en banc review means the city’s legal team will ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the panel’s decision. The city attorney did not provide a timeline for the en banc filing or estimate potential legal costs in the announcement.

The meeting record shows Councilmember Starr chose not to participate in closed-session deliberations on this item; the council proceeded and approved seeking en banc review in closed session.

The council adjourned at the conclusion of the meeting and wished the public a safe New Year.