Three councilmen boycotted a closed session about shutting down
a medical marijuana dispensary because the issues should be
discussed in public, they said.
Three councilmen boycotted a closed session about shutting down a medical marijuana dispensary because the issues should be discussed in public, they said. The four council members who did attend the closed session – which followed an emotional and crowded open session – unanimously approved a resolution to pursue legal actions to shut down the collective, which opened without a business license last week.
“I guess I have been led to believe that the city has a rock-solid case and that there’s binding precedent and there’s nothing to worry about, so I am a little surprised that we have anything to hide,” said Councilman Perry Woodward, a property lawyer, who boycotted the closed session Monday night.
In accordance with Gilroy’s year-old open government ordinance, council members must vote on whether they should transition from open to closed session. During the vote to do so regarding the dispensary, three council members – Woodward, Peter Arellano and Craig Gartman – voted against it. Woodward said that was the first time since the ordinance was approved that the council had not voted unanimously to do so.
Woodward, Arellano and Gartman were also the minority in a 4-3 vote last month that would have created a specific ordinance to allow the dispensary, called MediLeaf.
After Monday’s vote, but before the closed session, Gartman told Woodward that the matters slated to be discussed in closed session should be discussed publicly, and Arellano happened to be standing behind them. Gartman and Woodward said that’s when they decided not to attend the private meeting.
“Just because some people want to do something that’s wrong doesn’t mean that I need to follow them,” Gartman said.
Rather than joining their colleagues for the 30-minute closed session, Woodward, Arellano and Gartman conversed with attendees in the council chambers.
Gartman said the council should discuss openly whether MediLeaf was operating out of compliance with city code. Those issues had not been discussed publicly, he said Tuesday, and he questioned whether releasing a resolution that had not been previously agendized violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, a law governing public access to meetings.
Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said Thursday that there is a “pretty broadly worded exception” for going into closed session for legal matters. That exception seems to include the council’s resolution as well as city code and zoning issues related to possible litigation against MediLeaf, he said.
However, the council did not have to discuss those issues in private, he said, and he found it commendable that council members would want to discuss them publicly.
Councilman Bob Dillon said it was unfortunate that the three dissenting councilmen did not attend the closed session because the meeting would have benefited from their input. While Dillon and Councilman Dion Bracco both favored the idea of discussing everything in the open at first, Dillon said he ultimately trusted the city’s legal counsel on the matter.
It would have been unwise to discuss the city’s legal strategy in front of MediLeaf representatives, Dillon said.
Mayor Al Pinheiro said he was shocked when City Clerk Shawna Freels said that Arellano, Gartman and Woodward were not attending the closed session.
“Truly, I’m disappointed in this new approach, which is, ‘I didn’t get the vote my way, so I’m not showing up,'” he said.
What’s the point of voting on whether to go into closed session, he asked.
“Why not say, ‘Whoever wants to show up, just show up?'”
The circumstances in this case were unique, Woodward said. The community was highly divided on the dispensary and the council was merely deciding whether to pursue litigation.
“There’s some times (in legal matters) when you need to maintain an element of surprise, but there’s nothing here that’s a surprise,” he said Tuesday.
Pinheiro said the city will first seek a temporary injunction to enforce the city’s cease and desist order.
City Attorney Linda Callon would not comment on how the city would go about pursuing litigation. After the open meeting, it was important to go into closed session to allow council members to learn about various legal alternatives, she said.
The council’s decision came after a lengthy public comment period, in which more than a dozen attendees, mostly medical marijuana proponents, petitioned to keep the First Street dispensary open. Several people held up placards that listed the ailments that they treated with medicinal cannabis while one person held a sign proclaiming, “Are you going to drive three hours to get my medicine?”
“This is not candy for hippies,” said Richard Diehl, a volunteer at MediLeaf, who said after the meeting that he has used marijuana medicinally since the Vietnam War. “You’re hurting your own constituents. Do the right thing.”
Dozens of attendees clapped and cheered after MediLeaf advocates spoke, though Pinheiro had asked people to hold their applause until after everyone had spoken. A sign that proclaimed “I (Heart) MediLeaf” signed by dozens of people sat behind where members of the public stood to speak.
Pinheiro said from the outset that the closed session intended to deal with the fact that the dispensary opened without a business license and that comments should pertain to that matter. Still, most speakers discussed the merits of the dispensary itself.
MediLeaf had tried to obtain a business license on two occasions since it opened last week, spokesman Eric Madigan said, but it was denied both times because it did not conform to federal law.
Javier Patterson, who manages the dispensary, said MediLeaf created more stringent background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds to help better ensure that those who were using its services really needed medical cannabis and were old enough to do so. He said the policies were implemented after some people came by who appeared to be of “questionable” age.
Meanwhile, Gilroy resident Ron Kirkish, who organized people to oppose MediLeaf last month, said he felt bad for those with health problems but felt the council needed to consider the well being of local children.
“I know we’re going to possibly spend a lot of money,” Kirkish said about a possible lawsuit between the city and dispensary, “but every time we have something to deal with, we can’t look at how much it’s going to cost us.”
Las Animas Elementary School parent club president Lisa Correnti, the only other person who spoke against MediLeaf, said the city should not approve a dispensary until there was a way to regulate it.
“I know all of my sign holders are at home, tucking their kids into bed,” she said.
Gartman wondered if the city was singling out MediLeaf.
“What they’re saying is, ‘I don’t like those people,'” Gartman said. “We have a restriction of trade issue here.”
Woodward also questioned whether all nonprofits in Gilroy actually have business licenses, but city staff verified in a quick check that at least the most prominent nonprofits, such as Gilroy Gardens and Salvation Army, did.
Irma Navarro, the city’s revenue officer, said Thursday that all businesses and nonprofits alike must receive a license, although nonprofits do not have to pay a fee.
Meanwhile, MediLeaf continued to see patients, which they claimed topped 250 people. The dispensary is ready to fight a legal battle with the city if necessary but would prefer to work out their issues by talking with the city, MediLeaf director Neil Forrest said Tuesday.
“We are prepared to go that route if need be, but hopefully sound minds will prevail,” he said.
