Last October, five stand-up residents of the 10700 block of Farragut Drive accused the City Council of violating the Brown Act (“No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda….”).
They alleged that, on Aug. 11, 2014, with respect to a matter not on the agenda, the City Council, following Councilmember Andrew Weissman’s lead, discussed and granted the Grace Lutheran Evangelical Church a right to appeal from a ruling by the City Engineer while waiving the $888 appeal-filing fee.
The City Engineer repeatedly informed the church that it has no right to challenge the parking restrictions on the 10700 block of Farragut because it is a “non-resident.”
The City Engineer informed the City Council that it had no right to hear Grace Lutheran’s appeal from his ruling.
Prior letters have described the political and business relations between Mr. Weissman and Ken Smith. one of the church’s leading figures. Mr. Weissman ignored our specific request that he reveal all of his relations with members of the church.
The City Council allows each member to decide for him/herself whether he/she has a conflict of interest.
In November, I appeared before the City Council and urged it to use its statutory right to stop any litigation by denying that it violated the Brown Act, but promising not to do it again, i.e., a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Thus, Culver City could have avoided any legal fees. The Legislature designed the Brown Act to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds.
Mr. Weissman and his lackeys decided to reject my suggestion and play macho-macho-man with our tax dollars. When the Farragut residents commenced litigation, Culver City hired a super-aggressive law firm to defend it. Almost every communication with that firm ended in a threat. Culver City, with some luck of the draw, prevailed at the trial level, but the Farragut residents are appealing.
Here is the kicker. The super-aggressive law firm has billed Culver City $140,000-plus for its services. The law firm indicated that Culver City long ago paid a total of only about $54,000. (Do I sense that a dispute is brewing?) Culver City asked the trial court for an order that the Farragut residents pay its $140,000-plus bill. Only one such motion has been granted in the past 63 years.
Disregarding the odds of success and evidently wanting to teach all citizens of the risks of daring to challenge its actions, Culver City gambled with our taxpayer dollars. The bill for that attorney’s fee motion alone was approximately $17,600. The judge denied the motion.
Have you heard the phrase “pyrrhic victory”?
Has the 10700 block of Farragut become Mr. Weissman’s tar pit? (It’s a sticky situation that is only aggravated by additional involvement in it.)
Win, lose or otherwise, Culver City faces an additional hefty legal bill from its super-aggressive attorneys on the appeal. If the Farragut residents prevail, which I believe they will, Culver City faces a statutory obligation to pay the Farragut residents’ substantial legal fees. Thus, Culver City is in a big-lose-now or bigger-lose-later situation—all because Mr. Weissman’s ego would not allow him to play Culver City’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card.
The dinosaur desperately needs a lifeline. From the get-go, Culver City has rebuffed each effort of the Farragut residents to amicably resolve the matter.
Will the City Council ever come to it senses and do what is in its citizens’ best interest? Or will the Council continue to waste our taxpayer dollars in its current course of conduct? Imagine what good Culver City could have done for its citizens with the $140,000-plus and could do with the money it may continue to spend in litigation that it could have easily prevented.
Ms. Greenberg may be contacted at plgreen@att.net
Corrected version – please print this one.
Mrs. Greenberg’s comments about the lawsuit that her husband filed against the city are so ridiculous they hardly deserve a response. However, since it was her husband that filed the lawsuit that was completely without merit, it seems that Les Greenberg and the 5 neighbors that he convinced to be parties to the lawsuit, should take full responsibility for the $ 140,000 that it cost the city to defend itself.
The presiding judge said, in no uncertain terms, that the members of the City Council of the City of Culver did not in any way, shape or form violate the Brown Act. There was no question in the Judge’s mind of that, and even when Les Greenberg asked the Judge to review his decision, he was told again that there was no Brown Act violation.
Frankly, I won’t be surprised if Les doesn’t file another phony lawsuit against the City Council just to buy some more time. Les has said many times it would be a waste of money for the city to do a parking study on the 10700 block of Farragut Dr. However, he doesn’t mind the city wasting 10 times as much as the parking study would cost, just to buy a few more months of enjoying his free parking lot.
Hopefully within the next 6 to 9 months the study will be done, the facts will finally be known, and the parking chips will fall where they may.