Residents Against Overdevelopment
How the Beverly Hills City Attorney Deceptively
(via a Brown Act Violation)
Tried to Change City Procedure to Allow
Enactment of Legislation at Study Sessions
instead of at Formal Evening Council Meetings
when Residents Are More Likely to Tune In
For years it has been the practice to only allow legislative action, such as the adoption of ordinances and resolutions, to take place at the formal evening council meetings, and not the afternoon study sessions when residents are less likely to tune in. In this manner, public participation and knowledge of important changes is encouraged and supported.
However, unknown to the residents, on January 29, 2008, our city attorney deceptively orchestrated a change of that longstanding procedure which procedure had been provided for both within our Beverly Hills Municipal Code and our City of Beverly Hills Policy and Operations Manual.
He placed on the consent calendar (a calendar for routine items which do not involve opposition) an agenda item changing council meeting times. At least that is what the agenda indicated as you can see highlighted in yellow at the top of page 4.
Although the changing of meeting times was agreeable to all, a reading of the agenda report, which would have seemed unnecessary for just a meeting time change listed on the consent calendar, disclosed that the city attorney was also having the council adopt an ordinance which removed the city's prohibition against any formal or binding action being taken at study sessions, and added in its place, "The study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all purposes." It was a violation of the Brown Act for such a change to be placed on the consent calendar, and for the proposed change not to be described within the agenda, thereby concealing the planned change from residents who would be unlikely to review an agenda report simply for a meeting time change.
The agenda report also indicated that the staff intended to continue to limit study sessions to items traditionally presented there. However any such an intention would not be binding. See page 2 of the agenda report where highlighted in yellow.
Ordinances must come before the council twice, so a week later the matter was again on the agenda, and again the agenda item was on the consent calendar, and only disclosed an intention to change meeting times. See pages 3 to 4 on the agenda for February 5, 2008, where highlighted in yellow.
This time the agenda report mentioned only the meeting time changes, but the ordinance which was set forth within the agenda report and passed, in fact deleted the prohibition against legislative action being taken at study sessions, and instead included, "The study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all purposes." See pages 1 and 2 of the February 5, 2008 agenda report where highlighted in yellow.
As previously mentioned, the above action constituted a deceptive violation of the Brown Act, however litigation for a Brown Act violation must be commenced soon after the violation and no such litigation was commenced on the unnoticed Brown Act violation.
More than 12 years later, in November of 2020, the unpopular mixed use ordinance which would result in taller buildings (due to the state density bonus program), had drawn significant opposition. Therefore the city attorney instructed the city council that the mixed used ordinance could be passed at a study session instead of a formal evening meeting, to help keep it under the radar.
Litigation ensued because the City of Beverly Hills City Council Policy and Operations Manual adopted in 2009 prohibited formal action from being taken at study sessions, and under case law, when a city violates its own rules, its actions can be set aside. See the 2009 and present prohibition of formal action from being taken at study sessions on p. 23 of the manual at the city's website at
https://beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/264/City-Council-Policy-and-Operations-Manual-PDF?bidId= and as set forth below.
The City Attorney's office's defense in this litigation was that the wording which had been surreptitiously added to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, "The study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all purposes," meant that legislation could be passed at study sessions.
The judge erroneously ignored the legal authorities about the city violating its own rules, and would not set aside the mixed use ordinance. The judge's decision was not appealed because even if the appeal would be won, the council could have easily just passed the mixed use ordinance again, properly this time at a formal evening meeting.
Since that case, the city attorney's office has endeavored to remove the prohibition of legal action being taken at study sessions which exists in our 2009 City of Beverly Hills Policy and Operations Manual, however like before, the city attorney's office is attempting to make the change surreptitiously.
Earlier in the year when Lili Bosse and Julian Gold were still on the council, the city attorney's office attempted to change the language to delete the prohibition against any formal or binding action being taken at a study session and to add instead that the study session shall be a regular meeting of the City Council for all purposes. And although such change was never voted upon or adopted, the city is now representing that the language was changed to read as provided below, and is now focusing on a a different proposed redlined change at a city council session on Tuesday, September 17, 2024.
Residents need to request that the city and the city attorney cease misrepresenting the provisions of our current City of Beverly Hills Policy and Operations Manual, and to cease further deceptive efforts to eradicate our well-reasoned prohibition against legislation being enacted at study sessions instead of at formal evening council meetings when residents are more likely to be involved..