Council splits over legality of Dec. 17 meeting; calls for legal review

During council reports the meeting turned to a dispute over the city's Dec. 17 reorganization meeting. A council member who said they were sworn in on Dec. 17 alleged that votes taken that night 'including approval of the Ravenswood Business District specific plan'were unlawful because the election canvass and certification procedures in California Election Code require installation of new officers before such actions.

The speaker read statutory language asserting that governing bodies must meet "no later than the 4th Friday after the election" to declare results and install newly elected officers and argued that extending the terms of outgoing members beyond their legal term undermined the legitimacy of votes taken that evening. Other council members responded in force: some said prior practice on combining reorganization and business items existed and urged the city attorney to provide an opinion; others called the allegations inflammatory and asked to proceed only after formal legal review.

The city attorney said his office had already provided advice and offered to share his written opinion with the vice mayor and to review any additional authorities the dissenting council member had cited. Several council members asked staff to circulate the prior legal memo and for the attorney to provide a clear public statement of the office's position. One council member suggested escalations to the county elections official or the attorney general if the internal opinion left questions unanswered. The council did not take a formal motion on repeal; members agreed to follow up with legal counsel before any further action.