Repeated discussions behind closed doors by the Cypress City Council to discuss the potential of changing the voting system within the city did not violate the state’s open meetings law, an Orange County Superior Court has ruled.
Californians Aware, a statewide group promoting open government filed suit against the city in 2022, alleging the city had a responsibility to citizens to discuss the issue in open session, though the Brown Act did provide “a basis for meeting in closed session,” it was not required as a first step.
Superior Court Judge Erick L. Larsh has ruled, however, that “there is no evidence that the members of the Cypress City Council did not comport themselves in conformance with the Brown Act,” according to a press release issued by the city early this week.
The ENE has requested a complete copy of the judge’s ruling and also reached out to Californians Aware for comment but have not heard back.
Californians Aware’s lawsuit originally argued that the City Council was not authorized to meet in closed session because there was no actual threat of litigation after the original demand letter was issued by the Malibu law firm of Shenkman and Hughes.
After the City Attorney’s office pointed out that the letter from SVREP specifically threatened “to seek judicial relief”, Californians Aware pivoted to arguing that the decision to reject the threat of litigation was somehow a policy decision that should have been made
in open session. Judge Larsh was not persuaded, city said in their statement.
The City of Cypress prevailed in the lawsuit filed by Californians Aware that alleged the City Council failed to follow California’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, when it reviewed a threat of litigation during closed session with the City Attorney.
The lawsuit accused the City Council of violating the Brown Act when it reviewed a threat of litigation arising from a threat by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP) threatening to sue the City for allegedly violating the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) unless the City transitioned to district elections. The CVRA claim is currently subject to a separate lawsuit, the statement said.
“While I am pleased that Judge Larsh rejected Californians Aware’s ill-conceived lawsuit and its efforts to make Cypress taxpayers pay for their lawyers,” said Cypress Mayor Anne Hertz-Mallari, “I am deeply troubled that special interests from outside Cypress continue to use the legal system to blindly pursue an agenda that threatens our community and our democracy.”
The statement was issued before Monday’s meeting when Council member Scott Minikus was elected Mayor for 2024 and Hertz-Mallari gave no further explanation of how a redistricting lawsuit threatens our democracy.
“As we head into 2024, Mayor Hertz-Mallari continued in the statement, “I am glad the City Council can refocus on serving the community and ensuring Cypress continues to be a great place to live, work and play.”
Cypress City Attorney Fred Galante added, “The City of Cypress is committed to complying with the Brown Act and embodies transparent and responsive government. We’re pleased that the court recognized that and vindicated the City completely.”
Currently, the city is in mediation on the redistricting lawsuit. Without explanation to the public, and now with the court’s blessing, the city continues to conduct itself in execution session on the issue, meeting for its first mediation session on the redistricting lawsuit in early November, according to plaintiff attorney Kevin Shenkman.
Though the city protested a report by ENE in September that they voted in secret to discuss mediating the redistricting lawsuit, Shenkman confirmed that city officials indeed met with a court-appointed mediator during the first week of November.
While the Nov. 1 session in Encino had to be cancelled because the court-appointed mediator was sick, Shenkman confirmed the two sides met with a second mediator the same week. He provided no details on what transpired.