Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-12 - MINUTES - SPECIALTuesday, April 12, 2022 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA City Council Special Meeting —Minutes— 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Weste called to order the Special Meeting at 5:02 p.m. ROLL CALL All Councilmembers were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR AGENDIZED ITEMS No requests to speak were received. City Council Chambers CLOSED SESSION Joseph Montes, City Attorney, advised of the need to conduct a Closed Session for the purpose of holding a: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of case: Michael Cruz et al. v. City of Santa Clarita LASC Case No. 21STCV47451 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - TO BE HELD IN THE CENTURY ROOM Mayor Weste recessed the meeting to Closed Session at 5:02 p.m. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Weste reconvened the meeting to Open Session at 5:45 p.m. CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENT City Attorney Joseph Montes introduced Kahn Scolnick of Gibson Dunn, one of the lawyers representing the City of Santa Clarita in the California Voting Rights Act matter, who made the following announcement: .r. Good evening. I'm Kahn Scolnick. I'm one of the lawyers who represents the City in a lawsuit filed last December in the Los Angeles Superior Court by Neighborhood Elections Now, Michael Cruz, and Sabastian Cazares. The City Council just met in closed session to consider a proposed settlement of that lawsuit, and the Council approved the settlement. I'm here to explain why the City reached that decision and what the settlement means for voters. The lawsuit alleges a single claim for a violation of the California Voting Rights Act, or CVRA. The plaintiffs want the City to stop using the at -large method of electing its Council, in which voters have a say in electing all five members of that Council regardless of where in the City they live. The plaintiffs argue that at -large elections dilute the voting power of Latino voters. Instead, plaintiffs want the City to adopt district -based elections -in other words, to carve the City into five districts and to give voters a say only on the lone Councilmember who will represent their individual district. I want to be clear about why the City is settling this suit. It's not because the Councilmembers believe that at -large elections are diluting Latino voting power, or that district -based elections would improve Latino voting power or otherwise help the City. The Councilmembers all prefer the current at -large system because it encourages candidates and elected officials to respond to the needs of the entire City, not just one small corner of it. The reason the City is settling is because CVRA lawsuits like this one are hard to win, and, win or lose, they're extremely expensive to litigate. That's why the vast majority of these cases settle -hundreds of cities and other government entities have settled CVRA cases since 2001 and have switched to district -based elections voluntarily. In fact, almost all other agencies and municipalities in the Santa Clarita valley have switched to districts because of threats of CVRA lawsuits. No city has won a CVRA trial before; I represent the City of Santa Monica in another case, and although we were able to win reversal of the trial court's adverse judgment in the intermediate appellate court, the California Supreme Court decided to take up the case. It has yet to issue a decision. That case started in 2016 and still hasn't been resolved. It might not be resolved even after the California Supreme Court hears oral argument and issues an opinion. Only a few cities have even taken a case like this one to trial. They spent millions on their defense costs and, because they lost, were also on the hook for the attorneys' fees and the expert fees of the plaintiffs. For example, the City of Palmdale had to pay about $4.6 million in fees to plaintiffs' counsel after losing a CVRA trial, on top of the fees that city paid its own lawyers. More recently, the City of Santa Clara agreed to pay $4.5 million in fees to plaintiffs' lawyers after losing a CVRA case and paying more roughly $1.5M to its own lawyers. And in the case against Santa Monica, after plaintiffs won the trial, they asked the court to award them nearly $22M in fees and costs. Your City Council doesn't want to spend the next six -plus years fighting this lawsuit. They don't want to be distracted by it, and they don't want to spend your tax dollars paying people like me to fight the case, especially because it might be hard to win anyway -so there's a big risk of being ordered to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys too. And if the case goes forward and the City loses, the City would have less control over possible remedies than it would with a settlement. So to avoid the anticipated expense and uncertainty associated with a trial and appeal, and to have control over any changes that will be made to the City's election process, a settlement Page 2 agreement has been negotiated with the plaintiffs, and it was approved tonight by the City Council in closed session in a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember McLean as the dissenting vote. The settlement takes the form of a proposed consent decree that will be submitted to the court as a proposed order in the next few days. Copies of the proposed consent decree will be made available to the public as soon as tomorrow, once it is fully signed by all parties and counsel. Copies of this statement will also be made available. Here are the key points: - First, the City will switch from at -large elections to district -based elections, with five districts. This means that each voter will have only one vote and will be able to choose only a candidate running in that voter's district. - Second, the City won't make the switch until November 2024. So the November 2022 election will be just like past elections; each voter will be able to cast up to three votes and will be able to vote for any of the candidates. - Third, in the November 2024 election, there will be two district seats up for election -if you live in one of those districts, you'll be able to vote in November 2024 and can vote for a candidate who's running in your districts. The other three districts will be up for election in November 2026. - Fourth, districts aren't necessarily forever. They will be used at least through the 2030 election. After that, if residents wish to return to an at -large system, they may do so, but they would run the risk of another CVRA lawsuit. - Fifth, the City is going to develop a district map by working with the plaintiffs and their lawyer and, more importantly, by listening to and incorporating the views of residents. There will be two hearings after the November 2022 election to fine-tune a district map. The City welcomes everyone's participation in those hearings and will take seriously every resident's views about how the district lines should be drawn. - Sixth, the plaintiffs are releasing any other election -related claims they might have. And the map will be drawn in such a way to prevent anyone else from suing under either California or federal law. Avoiding further litigation will protect taxpayer dollars and allow them to be spent on worthier projects. - Seventh, the City is not admitting any liability. - And finally, the City will pay plaintiffs' counsel a total of $370,000 for all of their work on this case, including any future work in developing the maps next year; this also covers other costs like expert fees. As I said before, this is a far lower sum than what the City might have been ordered to pay if it fought this lawsuit and lost. - Page 3 I'll conclude by saying that although the City disagrees with the plaintiffs and their lawyer about ... the merits of district -based elections and their lawsuit, the City is nevertheless committed to working together to come up with the best districts it possibly can. To that end, I again emphasize that we welcome public participation in the drawing of the districts, which will happen after the November 2022 election. Mayor Weste thanked Counsel for the announcement and invited Council comments. Councilmember Smyth stated that he did not agree to the decision to settle the lawsuit because it was the desired outcome, but rather it was the best decision the Council could make under the circumstances. Councilmember Miranda stated that the odds of the City winning the lawsuit were too low for him to consider risking a major financial loss of public funds, which could have been in excess of $10,000,000, and commented on his concerns of the effects on the Latino community. Mayor Pro Tern Gibbs expressed the difficulty he and the Council faced when making the decision to settle the lawsuit knowing that it was not anyone's preference to do so and commented on the assumption that all voters in a minority protected class would vote the same way; and stated the current Council would continue to serve everyone. Councilmember McLean agreed with her colleagues' statements and explained that she chose to officially vote against it because she could not stand to say "yes" to it. She said this decision was "'— not about giving residents a benefit, but about money and a certain level of politics. She expressed frustration with the prospect of districting preventing someone of Latino heritage but living outside of the Latino district being unable to vote for a Latino candidate if they desired. Mayor Weste described the day as the toughest day in the City's history and that the decision made by the Council was the only responsible conclusion; however, the Council will remain cohesive and will represent all community members regardless of district. ADJOURN Mayor Weste adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ATTEST: U� CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 4