By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

March 10 -- The real action at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting could well take place behind closed doors, where the council will discuss how to fend off an unprecedented lawsuit filed against the City by two of its own members.

The class action lawsuit -- initiated nearly four months ago by Council members Bob Holbrook and Herb Katz -- seeks to shorten unrelenting late-night council meetings, which often go beyond the 11 p.m. curfew and sometimes stretch to 3 a.m.

The suit alleges the late night meetings bring “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs and deprives the public in general of the right to “address their local legislative representatives” during “reasonable hours,” according to a complaint filed with the LA Superior Court.

More than 50 meetings continued past 11 p.m. between Jan. 2001 and Aug. of 2003 in violation of California labor laws and the Brown Act, according to the plaintiffs’ briefs. The suit seeks a court order to halt proceedings at 11 p.m. sharp, unless extended by council vote.

While the council now routinely votes to extend meetings past 11 p.m., under a court order, breaking curfew could result in sanctions for violating the Brown Act, “unless a it’s a serious matter that must be passed that night,” said Rosario Perry, the plaintiffs’ attorney.

The issue has effectively split the council into factions.

Mayor Richard Bloom said the suit is “silliness that could cost the City a lot of time and money” and is simply a means to force the rest of the council to negotiate with Holbrook and Katz on meeting hours.

“I’ll shave my head if this case goes to court,” said Bloom. Holbrook and Katz, he said, “are just acting out, and have no legal basis in bringing this case. It’s going to be thrown out of court. The entire case is a can of corn.”

Bloom admits that the meetings should be restructured, but litigation should not be used so readily.

Holbrook and Katz “don’t like having to stay late for council meetings, and everyone on the council agrees with them,” said Bloom. “We could bring any number of changes in the way the City hears its business, such as meeting during the day, but they brought this lawsuit instead. It’s an entirely inappropriate way to handle the situation.”

Bloom likened the dispute to a family feud and said “every once in a while, each of us gets carried away. Hopefully Herb and Bob see that this is not the right way to meet their goal.”

Katz agrees the situation is family feud, but the way he sees it, “the family is the council, the staff and the public.”

“We have to think, not only how this affects us, but our staff and the public too,” Katz said. “Many times, staff will show up late the day after a council meeting because they are all so tired from the night before. It affects city business.”

This issue, Katz said, has come up a number of times in the last two years, and he has suggested many ways the council can cut down on late-night meetings.

“We could try meeting with staff before the meeting, or limit the amount of public speaking time,” said Katz. “The public could write as many letters as they want to give their input instead of taking up meeting time.

“Another option is to meet every Tuesday,” he said. “We used to meet every Tuesday, now we only meet every other Tuesday.”

A February 6 news report by The Lookout highlights at least one attempt by the Council to reconcile their differences. ("Finding Solutions for Late Night Meetings," Feb. 6, 2002)

Yet Katz said the council has refused to institute any changes and feels the lawsuit is the only way to roll back the meeting hours.

“It’s not about money and we’re not asking for money,” said Katz. “I would drop the lawsuit in five minutes if I felt I could reach a compromise.”

The lawsuit puts the City Attorney’s office in an interesting legal position during the closed-door session, because the council members she normally advises are both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

There is also the issue of whether Council members Holbrook and Katz can sit in on the session, or whether they have a conflict of interest.

The City Attorney’s office refused to comment on such questions because the litigation is pending. However, Bob Myers, who was City Attorney from 1981 to 1992, gave his assessment of the case.

“They clearly have a conflict-of-interest and can’t go into the closed session on this particular issue,” said Myers. “Nothing rises more to a conflict of interest than being involved in litigation” against the City.

Meyers also questioned the merits of the lawsuit, calling it “silly.”

“It strikes me as it having no merit to it,” Myers said. “The biggest problem with this lawsuit is that it’s silly.”

Despite the dust-up, both Mayor Bloom and Council member Katz said they have an amiable professional and personal relationship.