Residents Against Overdevelopment

                                                          

     Having noticed the misrepresentation prior to the September 17, 2024 study session, Darian Bojeaux had e-mailed to council members and staff concerning the deceptive presentation of a changed manual instead of a red-lined version of the change sought with the language requested to be deleted.  Also provided was evidence of the city attorney's 2008 unethical Brown Act violation in misrepresenting an agenda item as just changing meeting times, and instead amending the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to omit the prohibition against formal action, resolutions, and ordinances being passed at study sessions.

   

     A video of the ​September 17, 2024 Study Session is found at

https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/9941?view_id=49&redirect=true

 

    At 12:57 the policy manual item was called; public comments were read at 20 to 30 of the video; and the subject was dealt with up to 43 of the video.  

   

      E-mailed comments requesting that the city maintain the present rule and that all legislation and formal actions such as adopting ordinances and resolutions occur only at evening formal meetings, to give more residents an opportunity to participate, were sent in by many residents whose comments are summarized as follows:

     Cathy Baker--Please maintain our present rules so that all formal actions and legislation will occur at the evening formal meeting.

     Ronald Richards--Major or moderate legislation should not be passed at a study session.  Minor things related to planning or having something put on the agenda for council consideration is okay, but normal legislation should be handled at the evening formal session.

     Benjamin Thompson--Do not make a change so that the council can pass legislation in the afternoon.

     Daniel Hollander--I am opposed to any change of the rules and practices regarding legislation which should only be passed during the evening formal council sessions.  

     Sara Willen--I am adamantly opposed to the council undertaking any legislation at study sessions.  Transparency is everything, and much more important than the council's convenience.

     Cherie McDermott--Please don't make changes to the City of Beverly Hills Policy and Operations Manual to allow the city council to make binding decisions behind closed doors.  Democracy thrives in the light and dies in the dark.

     Arlene Sidaris--Beverly Hills residents want to maintain our present rule that legislation and all formal actions may only occur during the evening formal council meeting.

     Deborah Blum--I would like to maintain the city's present rule that legislation and all formal actions may only occur during the evening formal council meeting.

     Lee Pasternak--We do not appreciate the underhanded efforts to pass legislation, resolutions, and ordinances at study sessions, for the purpose of limiting residents' participation and knowledge of city actions.  And when this rule change was suggested months ago, the city staff concealed what they were attempting to orchestrate with their ambiguous language--that a study session shall be a regular meeting for all purposes--and staff's insincere suggestions that although a change was being authorized, it would not likely be utilized.  Then why make the change? The staff also underhandedly falsely misrepresented that the change had already been made when the proposed change to the manual should have been redlined.  There is no good, honest reason to make such a change.  However if any of the council members think that such a change would be a good idea, then put it on the agenda, and let residents know what is being proposed and why.  If a good change were being proposed, it would not require residents to be misled. 

     Sonia Berman--I am a long time resident who has served the city both as an employee and a volunteer commissioner.  Yet from my most recent experiences, it seems that my opinion and those of other residents is of no interest to council members which is disheartening and disappointing since council members were elected to represent us.  The policy manual specifies that important decisions are to be made at a formal evening meeting--not at an afternoon study session, to give residents an opportunity to participate, since many cannot attend afternoon meetings.  The proposed change would prevent residents from being a part of the governmental process.  I fail to understanding the reasoning behind such a change and strongly oppose it. 

     Steve Mayer--The existing policy manual has served the city well for many years.  

     Edwin J. Vlessing, Meihong Vlessing Liu, and Winston Vlessing--We want to maintain our present rule that legislation and all formal actions may only occur during the evening formal council meeting, giving more residents the opportunity to participate.  

     Robert Bird and Renée Strauss--It has been the custom and practice in our city for legislation and other important decisions to be made only at the formal evening city council meetings, and that the afternoon study sessions are to study and discuss issues.  This practice insures that residents have an opportunity to participate in important decisions and for the city to be transparent.  We are appalled to find out that the city is proposing a change to allow legislation and other important decisions, which will affect residents, to be made at afternoon study sessions and we are totally opposed to this change.

     Noga Sherman--We residents want to maintain our present rules that legislation and all formal actions may only occur during the evening formal council meetings, giving more residents an opportunity to participate.  

     Larry Miller.  I want to maintain our present rule that legislation and all formal actions may only occur at evening formal council meetings.  The new proposed rule is outrageous and can only lead to more cynicism about our local government.  I have lived here since 1985 and the lack of transparency during the last few years is quite alarming, and it is as if the council thinks it can get away with whatever it wants.  

     Thomas White, Chairman of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills--Please leave formal or binding actions upon any resolution, ordinance or other action of the council to formal evening meetings only.  Study sessions serve a valuable role and should not be converted into "regular meetings" for such purposes.  This is our longstanding and successful tradition which allows those who work to participate in the operation of their own government.

​    

     The City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey at 30 on the video stated that staff was not acting in an underhanded or insincere way "as far as she was aware".  

 

     Mayor Lester Friedman claimed that he thought the change to the manual had been in effect for some time. 

 

     Nancy Hunt-Coffey, the City Manager, took responsibility for the fact that the proposed change should have been red-lined in.  She continued that the city was interested in codifying the change when at 33 on the video, the City Attorney, Larry Wiener, interrupted her, stating, "We had codified it.  The council actually adopted an ordinance which provided that at the study session, the council could take formal action.  …"

​

     He continued that the council adopted an ordinance in 2008 that the council could take formal action at a study session; the manual was never updated to reflect what the council did by ordinance; it was the subject of litigation 2 or 3 years ago; and that the city prevailed in that litigation because the council had adopted the ordinance.  He further offered that the council could go back to the way it was prior to the 2008 ordinance if desired.

​

     Although it had not yet been brought out at the public meeting, the City Attorney as well as staff and council members who had read the documents provided to them prior to the meeting, well understood that the 2008 ordinance the City Attorney was referring to had been enacted by him in an underhanded, illegal manner via the City Attorney's Brown Act violation, placing the matter on the Consent Calendar under the false description that it only involved a change of meeting times. 

​

     Mayor Lester Friedman then asked the City Attorney whether since we have an ordinance which allows the city to to take formal actions at study sessions, the city is compelled to follow the ordinance even if it is inconsistent with the policy manual.

​

     The City Attorney continued to pretend that the 2008 ordinance had been legitimately passed and indicated that the mayor was correct and that the policy manual introduction provided that ordinances control.  In fact, the policy manual introduction does not so provide, but it does provide that the policy manual is a guide.

​

     Perhaps out of guilt, or a concern that council members and residents had become aware of his illegetimate conduct in 2008, the City Attorney again stated that the council could change the ordinance back to the way it was prior to 2008.

​

     Mayor Friedman continued that with respect to any claim of underhandedness, that the presentation of the manual language was a simple error because the ordinance is controlling, and the manual should have been red-lined, but the proposed provision is consistent with the ordinance.

​

     After Mayor Friedman stated that he could not recall passing an ordinance at a study session (even though he had on November 10, 2020), the City Attorney, stated that one time an ordinance was adopted during a study session and that although it was years ago, he did not think that there was an evening meeting set on that date.   In fact the City Attorney was well aware that it was the mixed use ordinance and resolution to amend the general plan which had been voted upon and passed at a study session, and in fact an evening meeting also took place on that same date, November 10, 2020.  But passing the unpopular legislation at the earlier study session helped keep it under the radar.

​

     A telephone call comment from Darian Bojeaux had inadvertently been missed by the clerk so the comment was allowed starting at 39 on the video.  She stated that the City Attorney was not being honest and that the 2008 ordinance had been listed on the Consent Calendar as an item to change council meeting times, but actually deleted the prohibition against legislation at study sessions, and added that the study session would be regular meetings for all purposes.  She continued that the City Attorney was acting like the council had passed such an ordinance with an intention to make such a change, when the change was never considered by the council or the public, and that the ordinance should be changed back to be consistent with the current wording in the 2009 manual which had been adopted a year after the City Attorney changed the ordinance.  

​

     At the end of 42, Mayor Friedman was speechless over the fact that the City Attorney's unethical conduct had been made public and Mayor Friedman stated, "I'm not sure where to go," and he asked the City Attorney to respond.  

 

     The City Attorney could not truthfully deny his previous unlawful conduct and so he did not address what he had done.  He instead indicated that staff had recommended that the matter be sent to an ad hoc committee to discuss all of these issues.

 

     Other issues were discussed and at later 1:06, Council Member John Mirisch indicted that all important decisions should be made in the evening session.

​

     At 1:13, Council Member Craig Corman, despite his lack of personal knowledge, claimed that there was no duplicity involved in staff's failure to red-line the proposed change.  He also expressed that the Beverly Hills Municipal Code could provide that a study session is a regular meeting for all purposes and that manual language could limit it.  But he, as an attorney, knew or should have known that he was incorrect because an ordinance trumps a rule.

     

Ad hoc meetings on policy manual changes were held under the radar on February 7 and 18, 2025

where the City Manager again misrepresented

current manual provisions.      

 

     We learned that ad hoc committee meetings on changes to the manual had taken place on February 7 and 18, 2025 without notice to interested residents.

​

     We will summarize and cite where important statements were made at the February 7, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting, on the video which is found here:    

​https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/10141?view_id=73&redirect=true

​

     After the City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey was criticized and took responsibility at the September 17, 2024 study session for misrepresenting and deleting from the manual draft, current provisions prohibiting formal actions on resolutions and ordinances at study sessions, she did it all over again, this time without any apology.

She stated at 1:04 of the February 7 video that the same manual language was being presented that was presented to the council on September 17, 2024 "with one edit", explaining that in the September 17, 2024 manual version, she should have underlined (meaning red-lined) the final two sentences which related to "whether formal action can be taken at study sessions".  Actually the final two sentences were not about "whether" formal action could be taken at study sessions--the final two sentences prohibited formal action from being taken at study sessions.  She continued that leaving out the last two sentences conformed with action that the city council had taken previously--gesturing to the City Attorney to give credence to his underhanded, unlawful 2008 ordinance change, but that the omitted language should have been red-lined in so the council would know that it was a change.  She also stated that the omission of the sentences had caused some concern by public speakers at the time.  She then concluded ambiguously, "That's the only change we have made to the policy manual at this time" without explaining what change had been made.

 

     What she had presented, shown below, again omitted the following two sentences which should have been included and red-lined if their deletion was sought:  "At the study session meetings the council shall not take any formal or binding action upon any resolution, ordinance, or any other action required by law to be taken by the council.  Such action occurs at the formal meetings."

 

​
 

   

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

​

​​The above misrepresented manual provisions are found within attachment 4 for the February 7 ad hoc meeting, at page 10 at https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&clip_id=10141&meta_id=631138.

​

     These manual provisions were not discussed further at the February 7 ad hoc meeting.

​

     At the February 18, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting, despite past opposition by many residents, Council Member Craig Corman urged in the absence of all of those residents that the council should be able to take formal actions at study sessions if "reasonably necessary" even though it should never be necessary.

     The February 18, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting video is found at:

https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/10160?view_id=73&redirect=true   

     

     Beginning at 26 of the video, Council Member Craig Corman stated that there were people who felt the 2008 ordinance that allowed formal actions to be taken at study sessions was done "in the dead of night" and they were upset about it because they didn't know about it, and there is now an intention by the city to change the policy manual to be consistent with that ordinance.  However, he well understood that the 2008 ordinance was accomplished not simply "in the dead of the night" but in an underhanded, illegal manner which violated the Brown Act, and that the ordinance was never discussed by the council or the public.

     

     He continued that he thought there was an expectation in the community that the council is not going to take formal action at the study session "unless there is reason to do so" and that there is nothing wrong with stating that "the study session is a regular meeting for all purposes" to give the council "that flexibility it didn't have before" (underlined emphasis added).  He also thought that the policy manual language could be a little clearer that it is not the council's intent to take formal actions at study sessions.  

   

     He suggested the revision:

     "It is the aim of the city council not to take formal action or public comment

     related thereto, at a study session, unless circumstances exist to make it

     reasonably necessary or appropriate."  

But this language, besides ignoring residents' sentiments, was known to him to be non-binding and worthless to residents.  That is, the aim of the council is meaningless and a "reasonably necessary" standard is a nebulous, non-existent, and unenforceable limitation.  Basically his suggested language was an insult to residents' intelligence.

 

     He continued that taking formal action at study sessions was something that the council would not "regularly do"--an unenforceable representation.

 

     At 28 on the video, Vice-Mayor Sharona Nazarian said that she would be in support of what he had suggested.

​

Council Member Craig Corman's subsequent conditional agreement to recommend against formal action being taken at study sessions.

​

     Darian Bojeaux, having learned about the two previous un-noticed ad hoc committee meetings, reviewed the videos and was alarmed at the language suggested by Council Member Craig Corman and began exchanging e-mails with him.  

 

     On February 23, 2025, Council Member Craig Corman e-mailed to Darian Bojeaux:

     "Our next ad hoc committee meeting is this Thursday at 3:30 p.m.  Why   

     don't you come and make your case?  If you can get Sharona to agree the

     Council should not be able to take any formal action at study sessions, I will

     withdraw my proposed language and the ad hoc committee can

     recommend keeping the old policy manual language and revising the

     Municipal Code to conform with it.  I honestly don't think you're going to

     get Sharona to go along with that, but I'm happy to be proven wrong."

     (underlined emphasis added)

     

     Enthused about the challenge, Residents Against Overdevelopment rallied some residents over the issue and Darian Bojeaux appeared at the February 27, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting.

​

At the February 27, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting, Vice-Mayor Sharona Nazarian and Council Member Craig Corman agreed to recommend

that no formal actions should be taken at study sessions--but ignored resident input by limiting their suggested prohibition to legislation or development matters instead of all formal actions.

​

​     The video of the February 27, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting is found at:

https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/10187?view_id=73&redirect=true

 

​     At the beginning of the meeting Darian Bojeaux objected to the lack of notice to the public of the ad hoc committee meetings, its deficient agenda, and the present language on page 3 of the policy manual which reads:

 

     "This manual is intended to be a guide and is not a substitute for the law or counsel, guidance, or opinion of of the city attorney," which language attempts to turn the manual of governing rules into a meaningless guide, with which the City can disagree as his office did during litigation over the mixed used ordinance.  

 

     Darian Bojeaux continued at 3 of the video that for the second time the manual draft excluded the present very important language so residents would not know that the manual presently provides:  :     

           "At the study session meetings the council shall not take any formal or

          binding action upon any resolution, ordinance, or other action required

          by law to be taken by the council.  Such action occurs at the formal

          meetings." 

​

     She continued that at the September 17, 2024 study session, the City Manager said words to the effect, "Oh, my mistake, I take responsibility, there was red lining dripping off the page, I don't know how that happened, to the best of my knowledge or whatever."  And now, again the present language was excluded instead of red-lined, which was incomprehensible and between incompetent and fraudulent.

 

     Darian Bojeaux stated what all of the ad hoc committee members already knew--that in 2008 our City Attorney placed on the Consent Calendar an item that was billed as changing meeting times.  Unknown to everyone including the council members, and Nancy Krasne who was a council member at that time, the City Attorney provided an ordinance which deleted all prohibitions against taking formal actions at study sessions, and instead provided that a study session would be a regular meeting for all purposes.  His conduct was fraudulent, misleading, and the ordinance should be changed back to what it originally provided, which would match the present manual language.  The ordinance change has to be made to make the ordinance consistent with the manual because the City Attorney's Office argues that the statute trumps the manual.

 

     At 12 of the video, the public comments which had previously been made on the above issue at the February 6 and September 17, 2024 study sessions had been printed up and acknowledged as having been received by the ad hoc committee.  From 12 to 28 on the video, e-mails on the issue were read from the following residents, the main points of which are summarized:  

     Daniel Hollander--A study session is what the words mean--a time to learn, not the time to make decisions, and if the council is not willing to understand this, they should be voted out.

     Daniella Anderson--Study sessions should be what the title implies and the policy manual should not be changed to allow formal actions to be taken at study sessions under any circumstances.

     Gordon Gelfond--Please do not take actions on city matters at your afternoon sessions.  The residents and others need to be able to express their views at the evening meetings.  This has worked for years.  Let's not change it now.

     Linda Spiegel--I am concerned over the public's ability to publicly comment on major agenda items and the priority the city council puts on transparent, responsible government.  If the proposed new rule states that it is the aim of the city council that public comment on major items should generally occur at the evening formal session, then it would follow that the public must have a correlating opportunity to be heard when major items are on the agenda. Allowing final votes on major items at afternoon study sessions constricts if not defeats the public's ability to comment on major items.  In fact the proposed language could be construed to allow all "major items" to be moved to informal study sessions where comment may not occur or be possible at all.  Afternoon is when the citizenry is at work and therefore not able to attend a multi-hour afternoon city council meeting.  The true aim of the proposed change is called into question.  More transparency is essential if not paramount, and the proposed change raises the specter of the city council's desire to take action opaquely.  Residents relied on your campaign statements and expect you to be receptive to hearing our concerns.  To renew public confidence, reconsider and reject the proposed changes to long respected procedures regarding actions which can be taken at afternoon study sessions which by definition are not formal meetings where final actions are to be taken.  

     Abigail Jones--Please keep the current system.  I depend on the city to keep me in the loop about its decision-making.  

     Larry Miller--A study session should be just what its title implies and our procedures manual should not be changed to allow formal actions to be taken at a study session under any circumstances.  Such a change only further alienates residents from the actions of their government.

     Ronite Stone--I oppose any change to the city's policies or procedures which would in any way lessen transparency or residents' ability to comment or participate in local government, and I object to changing any policies to permit formal actions to be taken at afternoon study sessions.

     Andrea and Rick Grossman--Community voices should be heard, not silenced, and we are opposed to allowing the council to vote on formal matters including legislation at the afternoon study sessions, instead of at the formal evening session when residents are available.  The effort to enable study session voting is underhanded and will undermine the community's trust in the council.

     Nadine and Bill Neiman--We are opposed to changes in policies and procedures which would in any way lessen transparency or residents' ability to comment on or participate in issues facing our city.  We strongly object to changing any policies to permit formal actions to be taken at daytime study sessions.  Voting should happen when more residents can attend meetings to voice support or concern and that is at the evening meetings.

     Gay Abrams--I am strongly opposed to allowing enactment of legislation and other formal actions at afternoon study sessions and to any change that undermines public participation and transparency.  

     Nancy Krasne--As a former council member, I certainly never would have passed the ordinance which allowed formal actions to be taken at study sessions.  Study sessions were set up to study items and not be a legislative body at work, and passing legislation at study sessions is totally out of order.  All legislation is handled in a formal meeting where constituents can come and address the council.  This has the appearance of being underhanded, sneaky, and dishonest.  The council's integrity is on the line.

     Debra Blum--I oppose a change to the procedures manual to allow formal actions to be taken at afternoon study sessions.  The majority of residents will not be able to attend afternoon study sessions so important decisions would be made with very little public awareness and even less input.  This would further separate residents from the work of the council, and our city needs more public engagement--not less.

     Kathrin Harkham--Please refrain from changing the provisions in our policy and procedure manual that prevent the council from passing legislation and other important actions at afternoon study sessions.  The current provisions are what residents want and expect at afternoon study sessions.  We also expect such actions to take place at evening council meetings when residents are more likely to be able to attend or watch and provide input.  It is also my understanding that our city code once provided the same prohibitions but that it was improperly changed without notice to the council members or the public. If that is the case, then our city code must be changed back to what it was, consistent with our current policy manual.

    Jaleh and M. Shaheedy--Please keep the city council procedure manual the way it is, precluding legislation, resolutions, ordinances and any formal actions from being taken at afternoon study sessions.  Residents expect a study session to be just what it is called and there is no justification to make it anything else. The formal evening meetings are where legislation and other important matters should take place and when most interested residents will have the time to get involved.  Also, the city code should be amended to match the current provisions of our city council procedures manual to avoid confusion and inconsistent results.  I understand that the code used to match the manual but that it was changed without proper notice to either the council or the public.  Please represent the residents and be our voice like you said you would when you were running for council.

     Lynsey Arce and Robert Troy--We are opposed to any changes to the provisions of the council policy and procedures manual which currently assures that formal actions such as legislation may occur only at the evening formal council meetings and not af afternoon study sessions.  If our Beverly Hills Municipal Code previously provided those same assurances and the code was changed without notice to the council and public, it should be changed back to what it originally provided.  Residents, especially working residents, are much more likely to find time to participate in evening city council meetings than afternoon study sessions which we all assume are for discussion only.

     Sonia Berman--There was a reason that the afternoon session was called a study session and was meant for discussion of all issues around a topic. Changing that format to allow decision making in the afternoon when many residents are working or otherwise unable to attend, is in direct opposition to the platform you all ran on which was residents first, or I will listen to you, the residents.  This promise evaporated the minute you got onto the dais.  When Thomas White [Chairman of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills] who carefully and thoughtfully evaluates issues before taking a position, advises you against this idea, you should certainly be paying attention.  I feel totally disenfranchised by all of you, and your attitude of being all powerful and knowledgeable is disgusting.

     Franny Rennie--I oppose the city council taking formal action at study sessions.  Our council needs to be transparent and residents need to be able to participate and comment on local government issues.

     Dr. Judith Siegel and Wayne S. Litwin--With so much dishonesty and manipulation in national politics, we would hope our Beverly Hills City Council would work even harder to preserve and project a high level of ethics and integrity.  The move to alter the study session scope and introduce procedural changes casts grave doubt on the intentions of the city council.  We ask that you refrain from this type of action​ and instead work toward increased transparency.  It is what you were elected to do.

 

    Starting at 28 on the video, Vice-Mayor Sharona Nazarian spoke about wanting to increase transparency and residents' participation, that every voice matters and that the proposals for the manual are not written in stone because it is just an ad hoc committee and it will go back to a city council study session for further review.  Her stated goals sounded good, but her recommendations on the issue did not live up to her claimed goals.

 

     At 36 on the video, Council Member Corman suggested that the ad hoc committee respond to public comments.  However there is a term referred to as "double speak" or "double talk" meaning ambiguous, deceptive, or meaningless language often used to hide the truth or confuse others, and he unfortunately demonstrated an aptitude for it.  He claimed that there was "a little bit of a disconnect" between what residents, at least two of them he spoke to, understand from Darian Bojeaux's communications to them, and what the facts actually are.  He continued that a lot of people think the council is changing rules and policy and how the city council functions, but the proposed change to the policy manual is to make it consistent with the city code, and that the council has had the ability to take formal actions at study sessions for 17 years.  But he was (1) pretending that the 2008 ordinance change was legitimate when he knew it wasn't; and (2) his new position that the council always had the ability to take formal actions at study sessions was inconsistent with what he stated at the previous February 18 ad hoc meeting, beginning at 26 on that video, when he had stated that he wanted the council to be able to take formal actions at study sessions so it would have the "flexibility it didn't have before".

​

     To support his position that the council has had the legitimate ability to take formal actions at study sessions for years, he indicated that Darian Bojeaux "believed that a piece of legislation had been passed at a study session". Meanwhile, the City Attorney, who knows that the 2008 ordinance change he orchestrated was deceptive and illegal, has been attempting to deny and minimize that formal actions have been taken at study sessions.  But perhaps unsure of this strategy Council Member Corman, like the City Attorney, also seemed to be attempting to minimize the formal actions which had been taken at study sessions.  For instance, he stated that he "only found" that the mixed use ordinance was "introduced" at a "formal" city council study session in October of 2020 and was then voted on at a "subsequent formal city council session in November of 2020".  His statement was misleading on two fronts.  His reference to a "formal city council study session" was incorrect because formal meetings or sessions refer to evening council meetings--not afternoon study sessions which have always been considered and referred to as "informal" meetings.  Further, his use of the word "introduced" in reference to an ordnance was misleading because residents would likely believe that "introduced" meant that the subject was just mentioned for the first time.  In fact "introduction" of an ordinance has a different legal meaning and means that the ordinance has been voted upon, passed, and a first reading of it has occurred or been waived--all of which formal legislative actions are necessary requirements to the ordinance being considered adopted at a council meeting one week later, when the ordinance comes up for a second reading and adoption.

 

     Had Council Member Corman performed his research competently, he would have found that as shown above, substantial formal action had in fact taken place at a study session on November 10, 2020 when the resolution amending the general plan to allow mixed use was voted on, passed, and adopted, and the mixed use ordinance was also voted on, passed, the first reading of it was waived, and the ordinance was continued to a subsequent formal evening council meeting one week later on November 17, 2020 for the second reading and adoption.  

 

     Council Member Corman proceeded to ask the City Attorney if he recalled a study session at which a vote was taken on the mixed use ordinance.     

     

     At 38, City Attorney Larry Wiener necessarily stated that it was the only time that he could recall that a vote on an ordinance was taken at a study session.  He continued to confuse the issue by acting like the mixed use ordinance was only "introduced" at the study session, concealing that "introduced" meant that it had been voted upon, passed, and the first reading of it was waived--all significant formal legislative actions.  He further stated that the matter was continued to a formal session "to be adopted" as if nothing of consequence had occurred at the study session.  And of course he left out that the resolution amending the general plan to allow mixed use had been voted upon and adopted at the November 10, 2020 study session, since resolutions do not have to come up at a second council meeting like ordinances do.

​

     Council Member Corman indicated that it was a fair comment that the council should not be passing major legislation at a study session, and Vice-Mayor Nazarian stated that they were both in agreement about that.  Council Member Corman stated that he had proposed some language at the last meeting and he would amend that language to make sure we are all clear that it is not the policy of the city council to take formal action or public comment on development projects or "non-urgent legislation" at a study session, his plan being to allow urgent legislation at study sessions.  

     

     At 41, Council Member Corman expressed an intent to have the policy manual coincide with the municipal code, when he should have expressed an intent that the municipal code be amended to what it was before it was deceptively changed, so that it would match the current provisions of the policy manual.  He also claimed that the two residents he spoke to and Council Member John Mirisch were not against the council being able to address relatively small budget expenditures "or something like that" at study sessions.

 

     At 42, in his continued effort to give full credence the the underhanded, illegal 2008 municipal code change orchestrated by the City Attorney, Council Member Corman stated that no one was trying to usurp new authority to the council, and that now we are talking about a policy that better and more narrowly defines the authority so everyone knows that we will not be taking major steps at study sessions.  However his statements were false because he knew and he had even previously stated that generally a municipal code section trumps city rules and policy manual provisions.  So any efforts to utilize the policy manual to circumscribe power purportedly granted by a municipal code section, would most likely be an empty meaningless, totally ineffective gesture.

 

     At 44 Council Member Corman indicated that the language which was deleted from the manual should have been included and red-lined.

​

​​​     At 46, he reiterated that the authority to take action at study sessions has been there 17 years but he agrees with all of the public comments that legislation and actions on development projects should not occur at study sessions and the policy manual "to the extent we allow any action to be taken" should reflect that.

​

     At 46, Vice-Mayor Nazarian said that they were in agreement.

 

     At 46 and 47 Darian Bojeaux spoke and stated that City Attorney Larry Wiener had concealed that the vote and passage of the mixed use ordinance occurred at a study session.  The City Attorney insisted that the second reading of the ordinance and is when an ordinance is adopted, as if the previous vote at the study session and waiver of the first reading of the ordinance was not a necessary requirement of the legislative process.

     

     At 47, Darian Bojeaux asked Council Member Corman how he could sit there and pretend that formal action could be taken at study sessions for years when he knows that the City Attorney's 2008 code change was made fraudulently, and was never run by the council or the public.  

 

     At 49, Council Member Corman responded claiming that no one is acting fraudulently and that the ad hoc meeting was solely about the policy manual--not about what happened in 2008 which was not within their purview--as if he had not, on February 23, sent an e-mail to Darian Bojeaux, as mentioned above, that if she could get Sharona Nazarian to agree that the Council should not take any formal action at study sessions, he would recommend keeping the present manual language and revising the Municipal Code to conform to it.

​

     Darian Bojeaux responded that Council Member Corman was attempting to rely on the 2008 wrongful act to justify changing the policy manual even though he had previously been provided with documentation proving that the 2008 change to the municipal code was deceptive, illegal, and wrongful.  

 

     Council Member Corman claimed that he did not know how the 2008 change was made because "he wasn't there" as if he could not tell from the documentation what had occurred.  He also accused Darian Bojeaux of misrepresenting to residents that there had not been a 2008 municipal code change, even though her e-mail to residents referenced the City Attorney's underhanded amendment to our Beverly Hills Municipal Code and provided a link to extensive evidence of the City Attorney's illegal 2008 conduct.

​

     At 51, Council Member Corman indicated that we had a disagreement over what the role of the ad hoc committee was on this issue, again choosing to forget his February 23 e-mailed promise.  He had also chosen to forget that at the September 17, 2024 study session, the City Attorney had guiltily offered, twice, to revise the Beverly Hills Municipal Code back to what it provided prior to 2008, at 34 through 36 of the video of that September 17, 2024 study session found at 

https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/9941view_id=49&redirect=true

​

     Continuing with the February 27, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting, at 51 of the video, the City Attorney asked if he could just read what was done in 2008.  Vice-Mayor Nazarian responded that he could, but that the ad hoc committee was not trying to change history or what was or wasn't done--they are just trying to make a recommendation on the policy manual.  She continued:

     "I also hear that we are in agreement that we do not want to make any

     formal action during study sessions.  . . . .  We heard you (referring to

     audience members).  I haven't heard us making any changes so you need to

     stop debating this back and forth because we have already come to a

     consensus and what we want to move forward with that there is no

     formal action on development or legislation during study sessions."

She continued that if the City Attorney read what happened in 2008, there would be more back and forth discussion about it.  The City Attorney responded that he would be happy to read it to anybody who would like to contact him about it in the future and that he would not read it now.  Vice-Mayor Nazarian then stated that she would welcome him to read it at the end of the meeting.

However, at the end of the meeting, at 2:02, when the Vice-Mayor asked the City Attorney if he would like to read what happened in 2008, he of course declined, stating that the moment had passed.

               

The Ad Hoc Committee continued to attempt to pull the wool over residents' eyes at an improperly noticed 

March 10, 2025 ad hoc committee meeting, 

which was abruptly terminated due to improper notice.

 

     The next ad hoc committee meeting was set for March 10 and the video of it is found at 

https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/10203?view_id=73&redirect=true.

​

     At 3 Darian Bojeaux commented that at the last meeting, the City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffee had purported to read all of the e-mails on the subject of study sessions and she failed to read at least 5 e-mailed comments that Darian Bojeaux knew of, either due to incompetence or fraud.  Those e-mails were from Sara Willen, Pablo Nankin, M.D., Peggy Kulch, Lee Pasternak, and Dan and Heather Pfau.  

​

     A handout at that meeting provided the following new proposed manual language, which instead of limiting what could be done at study sessions, reinforced that a study session was a regular meeting for all purposes--meaning that legislation could be enacted at a study session, to match the City Attorney's illegal 2008 municipal code ordinance change; authorized the council to take formal actions when deemed "reasonably necessary or appropriate"; and only prohibited formal action on legislation or development projects, which prohibition was insufficient and would be unenforceable.

​

     The new proposed language was:

     "The study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all

     purposes.  However, it is the policy of the City Council to take formal action

     at a study session only when it is reasonably necessary or appropriate, 

     and the City Council shall not take formal action on legislation or

     development projects at a study session."

​

      Darian Bojeaux continued that she was very disappointed with the new draft of the manual language on study sessions, and that the City Manager and City Attorney again omitted the current manual language which provides that the council cannot take any formal actions at study sessions, thereby continuing to falsely represent what the manual presently provides, for about the third time now, even though it was pointed out to her at least twice previously.  Darian Bojeaux continued that we are paying a fortune, $477,000 a year for a City Manager which we cannot rely upon to read all of the e-mailed messages or give us the correct manual language.  

 

     Darian Bojeaux continued that the meaning of "The study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all purposes," is that the council members can do whatever can be done at a formal evening meeting, including legislation, etc.

 

     She continued that the language "it is the policy of the City Council to take formal action at a study sesion only when it is reasonably necessary or appropriate" opens the door to anything being done at a study session.

 

     At 8, the Vice-Mayor Nazarian claimed that we have a very competent, superior staff and that if anything was omitted, it was unintentional.  She requested the City Manager to read the 5 e-mails she had not read.  The City Manager claimed that she was seeing those e-mails for the first time and she didn't know why.  

    

     At 10, an e-mail from Darian Bojeaux, with 35 pages of attachments, outlining and substantiating the City Attorney's 2008 illegal, underhanded conduct was read only up to a 3 minute time limit.  Upon the reading being cut off, Vice-Mayor Nazarian stated that the letter had been read by the ad hoc committee and it would go into the record.

​

     At 13, the City Manager read 5 of the e-mails she failed to read at the previous meeting.  Here we are starting out-of-order with the e-mail she very unprofessionally refused to read the entirety of, because she did not like it's content, and all of the e-mails are summarized below:   

     Lee Pasternak--Our city attorney defrauded the public and the council in 2008 by placing an item on the consent calendar to change council meeting times, but instead processed an ordinance to remove longtime safeguards from our city code prohibiting the council from legislating at study sessions.  If that isn't bad enough he, with the assistance of the city manager, have now twice misrepresented to council members and the public that these safeguards have already been removed from our city procedure manual.  The word on the street "as it were" is that our city manager and city attorney are a couple of crooks. Please restore our faith in city government and demonstrate to residents that you and our remaining council members wish to maintain some integrity by putting a stop to the unpopular attempts to change our manual to match the city attorney's . . . .  (At this point the City Manager refused to read the remainder of the e-mail which continued "dishonest deed in 2008, and by having our city code returned to what it provided pre-2008.")

     Sara Willen---Transparency in government is best served with full participation of the people.  Do not amend our city procedures manual to allow formal actions or anything even approaching enactment of legislation at afternoon study sessions.  Such actions should occur at evening formal meetings when most citizens, who work during the day, might attend.  It is with alarm that such a change is being contemplated.  Shame on you.

     Pablo Nankin, M.D.--We need to keep the decision-making of the council during the evening regular council session with more people, ideas, and solutions--not in the afternoon study sessions.

     Peggy Kulch---expressed dismay at at the city's attempt to enact legislation and take other formal actions at afternoon study sessions when many residents are unable to tune in, which study sessions should involve only discussions, and the integrity of afternoon study sessions should remain separate from evening formal council meetings.

     Dan and Heather Pfau--Certainly no one, including council members, should expect to be able to legislate at an afternoon study session or it would not be called a study session.  Both the city procedures manual and the Beverly Hills Municipal Code should be consistent and provide something like the manual presently provides:  

     "At the study session meeting the council shall not take any formal or

     binding action upon any resolution, ordinance, or other action required by

     law to be taken by the council.  Such actions may only be taken at evening

     formal meetings when the most residents are likely to be able to be

     involved and provide their views."  

There is no justification for changing the manual rule expecially when the change made to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code long ago occurred as a result of the it being placed on the consent calendar and described only as a change of meeting times.

​

     At 18 the City Manager wanted to discuss the draft presented that day of the language on study sessions, and that edits were an attempt to capture the feedback which was given at the last meeting and not an attempt to leave out or add materials that shouldn't be there.  Her claims were inconstant with her acknowledgement that language removed from the manual should have been included and red-lined rather than simply omitted, of which she had been reminded by Council Member Corman at that last meeting on February 27, 2025 at 44 on the video of that meeting.

  

     At 21, Darian Bojeaux stated that there was no excuse for omitting the current language of the manual from any draft of proposed changes.  

​

     At 24, Darian Bojeaux stated that we were provided with an agenda which only had an attachment 4 which did not have new changes in it; today we have new changes so that residents unfairly have not had a chance to look at it or comment on it; and there is no excuse for not including existing language with strike-outs.  

 

     At 26, Council Member Corman stated that Darian had a point about material which was not included and red-lined, since the council had not adopted any changes, but instead of requiring that present manual language be included for the ad hoc meetings, he indicated that it need only be done when the matter goes back to the entire council.  His comment was a complete contradiction of what he had indicated to the City Manager at the last ad hoc meeting on February 27 at 44 of that video--that the manual language to be deleted from the manual should have been included and red-lined.  He also made excuses for the staff's inexcusable repeated omission of current manual provisions, stating "perhaps it was not feasible to go back to the original draft" even though the original omitted language is well known and has been the subject of extensive comments.

     

     At 30 Darian Bojeaux stated that the present agenda for the meeting provided that all materials were previously provided for the February 7 ad hoc committee meeting, and today's new document was not provided as part of the agenda so that it was improper to go forward with the meeting.

​

     At 30 Council Member Corman tried to minimize the problem that the public had not been informed of new proposed language by stating that nothing was being finalized.

​

     At 31, Thomas White, Chairman of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills, expressed a point of order that whenever there is new material and a document has been excluded from public notice, that portion of the agenda needs to be excluded from the agenda because the public must have the opportunity to review the materials.  

​

     Since the new manual draft had not been provided to the public, the Vice-Mayor adjourned the meeting.  

​

                                                    Conclusion