Written by Jules Weissman | May 1, 2023 | Update May 16, 2023

NOTE: The Ventura County District Attorney’s office has weighed in. Read about it on OLO.

Seven Ojai Valley residents have taken legal action against Councilmember Leslie Rule for allegedly violating the Ralph M. Brown Act by disclosing information from a closed session. The group asks the judge for an injunction to order that she refrain from revealing closed session information and discussions in the future.

The defendants in this lawsuit are Leslie Rule and Jon Drucker. Rule is a newly-elected member of the Ojai City Council, having won the District One seat vacated by Ryan Blatz last December. The lawsuit helpfully reminds readers of the slim margin: just 17 votes. Drucker is a lawyer. The suit calls him “the agent, servant, employee, representative of, and/or joint venturer with Defendant Rule.” 

The Brown Act, a California law enacted in 1953, seeks to prevent government bodies from making decisions secretly or without public input, which can undermine trust and accountability. It requires that the Public be given notice of any closed session meetings, including the specific reason for the meeting. 

I am originally from Pennsylvania. We have a “Sunshine Act.” Mississippi has an “Open Meetings Act.” In fact, all states have laws regarding open meetings or public access to government proceedings. Overall, the US places a high value on government transparency and accountability, and the laws and regulations surrounding open discussion and public access to government proceedings reflect this commitment. 

But the law goes both ways. The Brown Act also allows the City to keep information concerning litigation, defense, and strategy confidential to protect itself from potential financial impact resulting in lawsuits brought against itself. It allows for closed session meetings under specific circumstances. [§54956] 

These reasons include (but are not limited to):

• Discussion of certain security matters

• Discussion of negotiations (labor, real estate) 

• Discussion of pending litigation

• Discussion of certain confidential information

Closed sessions of the Ojai City Council were legally noticed for December 13 (of last year) and January 9 and 10 meetings to discuss existing and potential litigation involving the City. These were the first three meetings for the newly elected group, including now senior member Suza Francina, reelected Mayor Betsy Stix, and new members Rachel Lang, Andrew Whitman, and Leslie Rule.

What was the subject of these closed sessions? I cannot lay out the history more succinctly than the lawsuit itself:

On October 25, 2022, the then-majority Ojai City Council approved a Development Agreement for the benefit of an entity named the Becker Group. The Development Agreement granted entitlements...for four...projects that would result in a substantial net loss of low-income housing units within the City of Ojai. In the public hearings prior to the City Council’s approval of the Development Agreement, the attorney for the Becker Group publicly threatened to sue the City for millions of dollars if the City did not approve the Development Agreement. On December 1, 2022, a local non-profit, Simply Ojai, filed a lawsuit against the City of Ojai to challenge the City’s approval of the Development Agreement...Simply Ojai v. City of Ojai named the following parties as Real Parties In Interest: Ojai Bungalows, L.P., Green Hawk, LLC, and The Becker Group, Inc, as they had a financial interest in the Development Agreement at issue in the case.

At the January 24, 2023, Council meeting, Rule made a motion to waive the confidentiality of those closed session discussions. Unfortunately for Rule, her motion was shut down by the Ojai City Attorney, Matthew Summers, who reminded her it would be illegal to disclose confidential information.

But Rule went ahead anyway, sharing her version of events. When it came time for public comment, Drucker, who introduced himself as Rule’s legal counsel,  insisted Rule was within her rights and berated Summers. He then distributed a list of the closed session details to those in attendance at City Hall, on social media, and in the Ojai Valley News. This move has caused a major stir, preventing the Council from having confidential discussions and leaving some residents confused, suspicious, and exasperated. 

The seven plaintiffs fall into the latter category. They are individuals who have resided in or near the City of Ojai for various lengths of time. They include David and Vickie Carlton-Byrne, Gerald Schwanke, Doug La Barre, Leslie Ferraro, Debby Russell-Swetek, and Thomas Drew Mashburn. 

They have asked the court to prevent any future unlawful disclosure by Councilmember Leslie Rule or her agent, Jon Drucker. “At best, Ms. Rule’s disclosure of the City’s legal options was negligent and reckless; at worst, Ms. Rule’s conduct was calculated to undermine the City and its voters in order to help one of her developer friends,” said plaintiff Drew Mashburn.

Rule’s actions have created turmoil at City Council meetings and set a tone of distrust among fellow Councilmembers and within the community. David Byrne, a long-time City of Ojai resident and named plaintiff, said, “It is really important that City Councilmembers, elected by the voters, follow the Brown Act and do not choose to make up their own rules for their own personal political agenda. I do not know whether this was a lack of knowledge about her responsibilities or a complete disregard for the welfare of our community. Rule’s actions have created turmoil at City Council meetings and have set a tone of distrust among fellow Council members and within our community. She seems determined to undermine the ability of the elected Council to complete its business.”

Brian Acree, lead attorney on the case, noted, “The ability of the City Council to confer in closed session confidentially with its legal counsel is essential to its ability to properly function and protect the interests of its citizens. This lawsuit is important to protect Ojai and its taxpayers from likely future confidential closed session disclosures by Ms. Rule and her agent, attorney Jon Drucker.”

Editor’s note: VORTEX will follow this story as it develops.

EDITS: (5/1) Added more context to Drucker's statement on Jan. 24 (5/2) Added "some" residents, after learning other residents did not feel represenented by that statement.(5/3) On review of Council footage it was not Jon Drucker, but a different public commenter, not named in the suit, who distributed the letter at the meeting.

VORTEX is in touch with Rule. Read her response to questions on OLO.