Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves eligibility language for boards, but sends litigation questions to closed session after ACLU challenge
Summary
Council adopted clarifying language that would restrict those involved in active litigation against the city from serving on boards and commissions, after heated debate and an ACLU letter arguing the change is unconstitutional; council approved the language but agreed to review the ACLU letter in closed session.
On March 24 the City Council voted to adopt clarified eligibility language for city boards and commissions that would bar individuals involved in active litigation against the city from serving, while agreeing to consider the ACLU of Southern California’s legal concerns in closed session.
The proposal—originally discussed in January—was prompted by council members who said a de facto practice had developed of excluding litigants from appointments. Council members for and against the change debated whether a blanket rule is constitutional. Council member Clarissa Cervantes read an ACLU letter (submitted to the city attorney) that described why the organization believed the revised resolution violated First Amendment rights and urged the city to rescind the relevant portions.
Council members and several callers argued opposing views. Jason Hunter (caller) said the blanket policy could be unlawful and suggested case‑by‑case decisions; another caller urged transparency about who proposed the language. Council member Mill argued the council already exercised discretion informally and that codifying a uniform rule would avoid ad hoc decisions.
The city attorney advised the council that the ACLU letter could justify discussion in closed session under anticipated litigation. Council member Cervantes moved to not approve the item today and to send the matter to closed session; after additional motions and debate, the council ultimately approved clarified language and also directed staff to take the ACLU submission under consideration in closed session. The clerk announced the motion carried with four affirmative votes and one recorded no vote; some council members stated they would vote to delay the item but the council action to adopt the language and discuss the legal memo in closed session moved forward.
Council members and callers repeatedly stressed that individual conflicts of interest and board duties remain part of the appointment process; the city attorney said the changes clarify whether class‑action suits should be covered by the rule and that staff can return with options after closed‑session review. Council recorded no reportable actions from closed session later in the meeting.
