Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City Council Recesses to Closed Session Over Church of the Nazarene Litigation; No Reportable Action
Summary
At a special meeting the Temple City Council recessed into closed session to discuss existing litigation titled 'General Board of the Church of the Nazarene v. City of Temple City' and potential initiation of litigation under Government Code section 54956.9; the city attorney said no reportable action was taken.
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Temple City Council held a special meeting on Aug. 10 and recessed into closed session to discuss litigation involving the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene and the possible initiation of other litigation.
"Just for, for the public record, one item is existing litigation, General Board of the Church of the Nazarene versus City of Temple City under Government Code section 54956.9(a)," the city attorney said as he announced the topics for the closed session. He also identified a second item as potential initiation of litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4).
The motion to recess to closed session was made, seconded, and put to voice vote; a council member said "Aye," and the mayor pro tem announced that the motion "carried unanimously." The clerk recorded the roll: Council member Chavez and Council member Yu were present along with Mayor Pro Tem Chen; Council member Sternquist was initially noted absent and Mayor Mann was absent.
The city attorney reported later that Council member Sternquist arrived to the closed session at 6:36 p.m. and that a briefing on the existing litigation ran until about 6:43 p.m., after which the mayor pro tem departed the closed session. "For each item, no reportable action under the Brown Act was taken," the city attorney said.
The special meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m., and the council took a brief recess before its regular meeting.
Because the closed session involved litigation and potential litigation, no additional details about deliberations were released; the city attorney explicitly stated there was no reportable action under the Brown Act for the announced items.

