CCMIN082091 - Laserfiche WebLink

421 Mr. Tarver stated that although it would be unusual for a Councilmember not to want to defend the City in a matter of legal importance to the City, he was not supporting the City in the petition for a Writ of Mandate because he agreed with the people who filed the lawsuit that the City is going beyond where it should be. Mr. Mercer commented that he could not understand why Mr. Tarver would not support the City in defending itself against issues like this one and Measure D. He stated that legal issues are different from political issues and that it is the responsibility of a Councilmember to defend the City legally and not to join the party that is suing the City. He indicated that he feels Mr. Tarver should not attend the executive sessions to discuss these issues if he will not support the City's efforts at defending itself. Mr. Tarver stated that he did not believe that what the Council has decided regarding this issue is in the City's best interest. He indicated that it is a matter of a difference of opinion in terms of the procedures followed on the sphere-of- influence/annexation issue and the citizens' committee, as well as the fiscal and planning processes involved. He added that the reason people go to court is to decide who is right and who is wrong on an issue of legal challenge. Mr. Tarver continued that he does not recall attending any executive sessions during which Council discussed strategies regarding a lawsuit that he has opposed, and that he would exclude himself from any such executive sessions on this issue, since he is not in agreement with the City's position, if the City Attorney so advises him. Mr. Roush indicated that he would provide some information on some parameters in terms of when it would be inappropriate for a Councilmember to attend an executive session. Each Councilmember can then make his or her own decision as to whether or not he or she would want to sit in on any particular session. - 23 - 8-20-91