Fillmore City Council Sued for Brown Act Violations
By Gazette Staff Writer — Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009
City of Fillmore
City of Fillmore

A Petition for Writ of Mandate, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief for violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act has been filed on behalf of the citizens of Fillmore by Petitioner Richard P. McKee, an individual.

The petition alleges an e-mail sent to Councilman Steve Conaway by Mayor Patti Walker, August 25 of 2009, “revealed a Brown Act violation by a majority of the City Council through a serial meeting arranged and facilitated by Interim City Manager Larry Pennell.”

At the regular council meeting, August 25, Mayor Walker announced that a closed session (not on the agenda) would be held concerning a Brown Act violation charged in an August 25, letter from Councilman Conaway to City Clerk, Clay Westling. The alleged violation concerned a serial meeting between three council members, which was arranged by Interim City Manager, Larry Pennell. Pennell sought, and obtained, concurrence of thought from a majority of the city council. In his letter Conaway stated that “As a council member, I expect that the City Manager will conduct business fairly, openly and with the highest ethics. Sadly, Mr. Pennell’s actions resulted in implicating three of my council members in this Brown Act violation.”

Conaway continued: “As a result of the serial meeting, the trust installed upon Fillmore officials will b e diminished. When this issue came to my attention I urged Mayor Walker to not act on the ill-gotten information. She chose to do otherwise. At this time I am seeking a demand for cure for the violation.”

Mayor Walker took the council into closed executive session at the August 25 meeting, stating that the reason for the closed session was the letter from Conaway to Westling, regarding a Brown Act violation. The council voted unanimously to add the closed session to the agenda, and recessed for that purpose.

Mayor Walker, at the conclusion of the closed session, announced that “an unintentional Brown Act violation has occurred, which caused no significant consequences, and the matter is now closed.”

Petitioner McKee challenged the council’s conclusions in a letter presented August 31, 2009. McKee charged that the closed session was an “improper secret discussion” asking assurance from the council that no further improper closed sessions would occur.

City Attorney disagreed with the Petitioner, claiming that the procedure in question was proper and not a violation of the Brown Act. After requesting and receiving a copy of the video for that meeting, Petitioner was confirmed in his belief that the meeting was not proper under the law. “The Brown Act demands openness, unless express authority for secrecy is provided within the Act.”

The Petition asks the court “to hold and declare that Respondent City Council violated the Brown Act by: taking action to add an item to a posted agenda when the item was known to the City prior to the posting of the agenda and did not require immediate action; holding an anticipated litigation closed session, and including the opposing party to that anticipated litigation, so there could be no prejudice to the position of the City in future litigation if the discussion had been held in an open meeting; claiming to hold a closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9, but failing to announce the subdivision authorizing the closed session; adding an item of business to the meeting agenda, and discussing and acting upon that item, without providing members of the public the opportunity to comment directly to the City Council prior to completing the discussion of and taking action upon the item. ; failing to report the vote of each Council member on the action taken in closed session.

Paragraph 49 of the Petition reads:
The City Council, having admitted a brown Act violation it would not identify (presumably the secret, serial meeting complained of by Council member Conaway), has now ignored the public’s rights again by holding another improper private discussion of their previous violation, and should therefore be ordered by this court to tape record future closed sessions.”

Petitioner also makes the following Demands:
To cure the five alleged violations of the Brown Act, Council must “reveal the discussion had in this improperly held “emergency closed session;” – “report the vote of each member in the action taken that resulted in the announcement that the council had determined that there had been ‘an unintentional Brown Act violation’ and that “the matter is now closed;” and give public assurance that in similar circumstances in the future the Council will not hold an unagendized closed session in violation of the Brown Act.

To cure Brown Act violation 54954.2, a demand is also made that the Council “shall, within the next 30 days, rescind the action taken to increase the pay of Interim Financial Director Leonore Young by 5%”
The Petitioner also asks the court to issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondent Fillmore City Council:
(a) to refrain from transacting, considering, or discussing unagendized items of business not authorized to be added to a posted Regular Meeting agenda;
(b) to refrain from completing the discussion of or taking action on any item of business without first providing members of the public with an opportunity to directly address the City Council on that item;
(c) to refrain from holding a closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9 without the prior announcement of the subdivision authorizing that closed session;
(d) to refrain from holding a pending litigation closed session that includes the attendance of an opposing party;
(e) to publicly disclose at its next Regular Meeting the discussion had in the closed session of August 25, 2009, where Respondent discussed and acted upon Councilman Conaway’s Brown Act demand with Conaway in attendance;
(f) to report the vote of each Council member when reporting an action taken in closed session;
(g) to tape record closed sessions of the City Council for a period of three years and to preserve those tape recordings as the City dies its other confidential records.
The Petitioner asks the court to declare that the City Council has violated five parts of the Brown Act.
The Petitioner asks also “That the Petitioner/Plaintiff recover attorney fees incurred in this action, for an award of costs incurred in this action, and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
The Petition is signed by Kelly A. Aviles, Attorney for Petitioner, and dated September 21, 2009.

Sorry, Charlie Tune...but

Submitted by Cre8PalmRoyal on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 11:22pm.

Sorry, Charlie Tune...but there have been more than a few "improper secret discussions" held during the tenure (so far) of the WWWB fiasco. Sorry, too, Attorney Schneider...for from my point of view, there clearly was a Brown Act violation, in this particular interest. I take issue with you on this one.

Seems there is heated thought herein where this group of three (and lapdogs) on the Council; Walker, Washburn, Brooks and now Pennell included as one of the infamous lapdogs, are totally mistrusted...and rightly for reasons that are substantiated.

And...those home dining table discussions and conference calls may be included in this action, I would beg to hope!

How is it you know

Submitted by sheiky on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 12:29pm.

How is it you know everything going on? If you have any proof to what you say, them why not act on it and file a legit complaint. Here say can realy foul things up for every one, if you have proof show it, if not please be pro active and try to help out to make Fillmore a better place. With all the inside news you have, put it into action not only words, remember you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. All of us live here not just the select few, we have our own thoughts also, some maybe good some maybe bad. From what I have read this was not as bad as you put it, we all make mistakes, I know you have or havn't you.

'sheiky'...you seem to be

Submitted by Cre8PalmRoyal on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 3:18pm.

'sheiky'...you seem to be following me around in the web site for some reason, like a little dog who cannot seem to leave his master for a second; with statements and inquiries which are already obvious to answer the normal reader.

The "proof of to what I say" lies in the very face of those particular outlines and criteria legal-based statements of the Brown Act and what it implies. The association of some (in the above article used as pure reference and many previous articles and comments made public in this and other forums) who have directly caused the violations of the Brown Act, which brought this entire case directly to Fillmore, and the situation whereby now, the County of Ventura will be the interlocutor of this meeting on 3 November, costing, out of the coffers of Fillmore, a little more than twenty thousand dollars or more for the unanticipated ball-bobbling of your City Council and particular mentioned members aforementioned, and their bad attitudes to boot...could have been prevented if there had been competency in the business of running this city government and cordial dictum used in answers and statements your council triumvirate used!

Your use of old sayings make no sense to the commentary. It is not my nature to kiss you-know-what's. True, 'sheiky'; everyone makes and has made mistakes. It is part of growing and learning, huh? But when mistakes are made and a person never learns from the error, and continues with making the same mistakes over and over again, tell me, what course do you think that person's attitude or learning curves take? I don't care who lives in Fillmore, 'sheiky'...it is the bad karma that has soaked City Hall with the unbelievable establishments of sheer stupidness. Some are trying their best to keep the ship on an even keel and it is very difficult to do. Stop following me around. I already have a new dog at my house, and this is enough to keep this 2-month old German Shepherd in line and off my ankles!

Your best defence is an

Submitted by sheiky on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 5:39am.

Your best defence is an offence, once again you have to insult some one who questions or has another opinion than yours. With all the hate you have for our current administation why not take the ball and run with it, run for a city seat, put yourself where your mouth is. I don't follow you around, you are all over the place making statments about things, but I guess I am not one of the GOM's so I don't fit in, whats next labeling me, you don't know me, or does your crystal ball tell all.

Your best defence is an

Submitted by sheiky on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 5:39am.

Your best defence is an offence, once again you have to insult some one who questions or has another opinion than yours. With all the hate you have for our current administation why not take the ball and run with it, run for a city seat, put yourself where your mouth is. I don't follow you around, you are all over the place making statments about things, but I guess I am not one of the GOM's so I don't fit in, whats next labeling me, you don't know me, or does your crystal ball tell all.

Sheiky, ahh, you sound like

Submitted by FillmoreNative on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 5:52am.

Sheiky, ahh, you sound like a broken record? and .... I think it's 'offense' dear....now, as for Grouchy Old Men, we owe our freedom, our very lives, to these 'Grouchy Old Men'....without them, you'd be saying ACHTUNG!! or even ... Sianara...
They are the backbone of America, and made America what we know today. We are losing them at an alarming rate, and you see today, the way the country is now, what a huge loss that has been!! Thank the Dear Lord for Grouchy Old Men~!!

...and this is the only

Submitted by agent86 on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 10:49am.

...and this is the only broken you see here in 11 months FN?

Well, well, well...'sheiky',

Submitted by Cre8PalmRoyal on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 3:26pm.

Well, well, well...'sheiky', you ARE a follower; a follower of Cre8PalmRoyal. There are no mistakes about that. Put YOUR money where your mouth is (if you have any money, that is) and YOU try to run for an elected position in the City of Fillmore. You are the "resident" there, not I. Sorry, no "insults" intended, just good old-fashioned debating.

It is not "hate" I have for the "current administration", personally, I think it is a very unfortunate, incompetent and agenda-driven group of nitwits trying to run a city government without any real knowledge of what they are doing; riding in the slipstream of others who seem to have pure working knowledge of the process, and trying to act as if they really do know what they are doing! No "hate" intended, 'sheiky'. Just disgust. If any "broken records" happen to be in vogue, 'sheiky', take a look at the Washburn, Brooks, Westling and Walker fiasco - then you will see a broken record!

By the way, this web site is available for readers who wish to comment, and we are allowed to register, and follow the rules of the website, and if there are articles we wish to comment on - why not comment on these articles? The comment sections are not blocked. Oftentimes, if one statement is made, others might get ideas on the article and comment as well. Their option, 'sheiky'.

Thanks, 'FillmoreNative' for your post. I spent nearly 34 years in the military and additional time up to now working for a US Government department. I guess I paid my dues to God and Country, and feel I still owe to the folks of the USA, too. I appreciate your accolade, not only to me (impersonally), but to all who have gone before me, after me, and currently, those serving in the US Armed Forces. Remember, 'sheiky', "Grouchy Old Men" are "Grouchy" for a reason; could it be people like you, sometimes?