My Responsive and Respectful Local Government

On September 15, 2015, the Lompoc City Council met in closed session, agendized as follows:

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Property: approximately 82 acres including and adjacent to Ken Adam Park. City Negotiators: Teresa Gallavan, Economic Development Director/Assistant City Administrator and Joseph W. Pannone, City Attorney. Negotiating Party: Eva Blaisdell. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.

After the closed session, the City Attorney reported that the Council had directed him to send a Notice of Default (NoD) to the California Space Center (CSC). According to city staff members, the CSC had not provided the City with all the information required by the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).

The decision to send the NoD was completely unexpected, and I thought it was inappropriate that such a decision was made without public input. I sent a cease and desist letter in accordance with CA Code Section 54960.2, to prevent future inappropriate closed sessions:



There was a front-page article and an editorial about the Brown Act violation in our local Lompoc Record:






I also wrote a blog post to explain the intent behind the cease and desist letter.

On November 3, 2015 the City Council met in closed session, agendized as follows:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One Matter regarding alleged Brown Act Violation regarding Notice of Default to California Space Center, LLC

After the closed session, the City Attorney stated that “no reportable action” was taken during the closed session. However, I received a letter from the City Attorney on November 4, which took the form of an “unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action”:



The Lompoc Record wrote another front page article about the City’s response:



In the Record, I expressed my "hope that the city's response is indicative of a renewed commitment to open government." But on November 10, after reviewing the City's response letter, I wrote another "cease and desist" letter.  Not only did the City Council fail to respond with an unconditional commitment, it violated the Brown Act again by discussing the unconditional commitment in closed session:



In the letter above, I asked Mayor Lingl: "Were these procedural errors made through ignorance or with ill-intent?" By the City Attorney's emailed response, see below, Mr. Pannone is apparently rejecting "ignorance" as the source of the problem, since he assures me that he is well versed in Brown Act requirements.



In our next installment! My slicing and dicing of Mr. Pannone's email can be found here, along with further developments.