Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City Council directs city attorney to defend suit by General Board of the Church of the Nazarene
Summary
At a July 7 special meeting, the Temple City Council met in closed session on a lawsuit filed by the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene and, on return, the city attorney reported the council gave unanimous direction to defend; the attorney said the defense will commence tomorrow.
The Temple City Council met in a special hybrid session July 7 and, after a closed-session discussion of existing litigation, instructed the city attorney to defend the city against a lawsuit by the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene. The council met in closed session to consider the matter and, on returning to open session, the city attorney reported the outcome.
The council’s city attorney reported: "The council gave unanimous direction to the city attorney's office to defend against the litigation, and that defense will, commence tomorrow." The attorney read the case caption as listed on the agenda: the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene v. City of Temple City.
The closed session was listed on the agenda as one matter of existing litigation. Before the closed session the mayor opened and described the hybrid meeting format and the clerk confirmed there were no public commenters prior to the session. The mayor asked the clerk to confirm whether additional public comment would be allowed after the closed session; the clerk said it would. On return, after the city attorney’s report, the clerk again reported there were no callers or in-person speakers and the meeting was adjourned.
No vote-by-name was recorded in the public report; the city attorney’s summary stated the council’s direction was unanimous. The report did not identify any motion-maker, list any votes by individual member, or provide further details about legal strategy. According to the attorney’s statement, the city’s legal defense was to begin the day after the meeting.
The council did not hear public comment on this item during either the pre- or post-closed-session comment periods, according to the clerk’s announcements. The meeting record includes several audible interruptions when the council returned from closed session; those interruptions were not characterized as formal remarks in the report-out.
The city attorney’s report is the latest procedural step recorded in the meeting minutes; the council’s formal direction to defend, as described by the attorney, is the outcome of today’s closed-session discussion.
