"Special" Council Meeting to Install New City Council
The City called an unprecedented "special" session of the City Council for December 13, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. But the meeting notice, agenda, and meandering report from the City Attorney (PDF) avoid explaining why this "special" session is needed—because the City Council currently lacks a quorum since a majority of its members were removed from office for illegally extending their terms. In particular, Ed Sachs, Wendy Bucknum, and Greg Raths were found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding public office and ordered to be removed from office. After a failed attempt to have the Court of Appeal set that guilty finding aside, each was removed from office—leaving only Trish Kelley and Brian Goodell on the dais.
Which leaves the City in a pickle. Even though the Attorney General's Opinion identified authority under which Kelley and Goodell could lawfully appoint a third member to create a quorum and thereafter conduct City business, the City Attorney argued that the City would be powerless:
(Aug. 30 Hearing Transcript, page 18). The City Attorney even refused an offer from the Superior Court judge to include clear direction in its removal order (Aug. 30 Hearing Transcript, pages 35-38). Why? Likely because the City hoped to protect Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths as individuals, using taxpayer money, to try and leverage that uncertainty to avoid being held to account. For example, this was the City's primary argument in its appeal court briefing.
But now, the City plans to do exactly what it argued could not be done. And thus, the City Attorney offers a meandering report that fails to even tell the reader why this waste of taxpayer dollars was needed—because, under the City Attorney's prior advice and guidance, the City Council broke the law on at least two occasions, and lost two lawsuits as a result (see Judgments here and here). Is this why the "special" meeting is being held at 4:30 p.m., hours prior to the regularly scheduled public meeting, when most working people cannot even attend or comment?
Who is Sherri Butterfield?
According to the Staff Report, Goodell and Kelley intend to appoint Sherri Butterfield tonight as the third member in order to form a quorum so that the new council can be installed. Who is Sherri Butterfield? She was a prior council member, winning seats in the 1994 and 1998 elections (the top vote-getter that year) before being trounced at the polls by voters in 2002 after she herself was found to have violated the law. She is a current and long-time Wendy Bucknum supporter.
More pointedly, though, Ms. Butterfield was herself the subject of a lawsuit involving the City. She and two other council members were found to have violated California's open meeting laws when they criticized and intimidated another council member during a closed session meeting, which resulted in an order that required the City to audio record its meetings for two years. (LA Times Coverage.) Not only did she refuse to resign, she used the City's PR Machine to issue a press release attacking the Court and Judge.
Perhaps that is all the pedigree that the incumbents need—steadfast in their violation of the law, and attacks on critics and courts that hold them accountable?
Welcome to the New Council
The soon-to-be three-member council will then certify the election results and a new council sworn in.
Former planning commissioner and incumbent-endorsed Robert "Bob" Reusch won the District 1 seat. Brian Goodell was reelected to District 2, where he will now be termed out. Sachs and Raths were trounced at the polls, replaced by Cynthia Vasquez in District 3. Trish Kelly was reelected to District 4 (having strategically moved there to avoid a three-way runoff with Sachs and Raths), where she will also be termed out. And Wendy Bucknum was re-elected to her third consecutive (and final) term.
Hopefully for the voters, the new council members will bring a fresh air of accountability. And, perhaps, the back-to-back losses in the courts, at what likely amounts to well over a million dollars in wasted legal fees (and a guilty brand on Bucknum), will cause the council to rethink its choice of legal counsel. After all, the City Attorney is an outside lawyer, paid by the hour to "fix" all of these problems, and serves at the will of the council.