The people who think the City Council should resign are outnumbered by the people who think the City was wronged. Imagine you want to buy a house. You make a low offer, but instruct your real estate agent that you are prepared to go a little higher. Now, imagine that you must do that in front of the seller. The very process of negotiation is over. The seller is not required to let the buyer know that he was willing to take far less. One side, in this case the City, must reveal its strategy, but the other side, the seller, does not. That is exactly what the court’s ruling mandates.
The City won the case at the trial court level. The appeals court wrote an entirely new law. So, how would the City have predicted that the negotiating process cities and counties have always practiced would suddenly be ruled a violation? This ruling apparently has appalled enough people that the League of California Cities, the County of Santa Francisco and others have asked the City to appeal. They are willing to join the case because it ties the hands of every city and county in reaching fair settlements and instead forces them into litigation. Those who opine that the City should not appeal this ruling because of litigation costs do not seem to realize that if the ruling stands, litigation costs are guaranteed to skyrocket. If the City Council was following a process that has been used in every California city, and was acting in good faith when they made the settlement, where was the Brown Act violation?
Martha Fling