Three City Councilman refused to attend a scheduled closed
session meeting to discuss
”
pending litigation
”
related to the city’s efforts to shut down the medical marijuana
dispensary which opened without a city business license.
1. City attorney’s never-ending quest to shut out the public a shame
Three City Councilman refused to attend a scheduled closed session meeting to discuss “pending litigation” related to the city’s efforts to shut down the medical marijuana dispensary which opened without a city business license.
Councilmembers Perry Woodward, Craig Gartman and Peter Arellano contended that the session should not have been closed to the public and decided to boycott as a protest.
Given the history of the City Council and the city attorney’s never-ending quest to construct paper tiger arguments to shut the doors and shut out the public, the protest is understandable. But Woodward, Gartman and Arellano made the wrong move. Councilman Bob Dillon had the right “gut feeling” but unfortunately too quickly abandoned his early calls for an open session when City Attorney Linda Callon of Berliner-Cohen made the predictable assurances that all was above board.
2. Council must take time to carefully break down closed-session agendas
The entire Council must be more discerning in closed-session matters. Why? Because the only thing that’s clear in this mess is that the items listed for the closed session needed to be more specific rather than casually tossed under the blanket of “pending litigation.”
It seems reasonable that there would be matters of strategy to discuss related to closing down the dispensary. It also seems reasonable to discuss the potential cost factors related to that fight in public. And there’s no reason the resolution passed by the Council in closed session directing the city attorney to go after the dispensary owners (and released publicly immediately thereafter) could not have been discussed in public.
Separating discussion on strategic legal maneuvers from matters which should be discussed in public is the Council’s responsibility. Unfortunately, the city attorney’s advice on these matters is often meritless.
There are two scenarios preferable to what happened. One would have been further public discussion about the closed-session agenda to limit the topic. Failing a resolution, Woodward, Gartman and Arellano should have retired to the closed session and, if the discussion strayed, protested vigorously. A walkout protest at that point, with a public report on what transpired, would have held more credibility. As it is, it appears as if the trio who disagreed with the majority decision on the dispensary simply staged a political position boycott.
3. Fighting the dispensary is the right decision, but let’s keep it public
Recent events also point out that it’s a good time to once again advocate for the video taping of closed sessions. That segment of Gilroy’s Open Government ordinance, duly championed by Councilman Woodward, was unfortunately removed. A retry amendment is in order.
Moving to close the rogue dispensary is the right decision. Crafting a legal strategy to do just that is also on the right course. Keeping the discussion as public as possible is incumbent upon all of those – the Council, the city attorney and the city administrator – who work for the people of Gilroy.
Unfortunately, Councilman Woodward’s statement is true. “Now, the city is paying Berliner-Cohen a lot of money that I believe could have been better spent elsewhere.” Also unfortunate is the choice made by the owners of the dispensary, Goyko Kuburovich and Neil Forrest, to force the issue by opening without a license.
Some issues go beyond dollars. This is a fight worth fighting. But it should be kept as public as possible – no sense handing the cash-hungry pot promoters an axe to grind.
