Regency: Council members violated open-meeting law

<p>Developers of the East Washington Place project — in addition to recently suing Petaluma over delays to the plan that could bring a Target to town — have accused the City Council majority of holding secret meetings in order to come to a consensus.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>In a letter sent to the city clerk on Jan. 13, Regency Centers accused councilmembers Pamela Torliatt, Teresa Barrett, David Glass and Tiffany Renée of violating a California law that requires all meetings of a majority of public officials be open to the public. </p><p>The Brown Act prohibits any majority of public officials from meeting or discussing matters they may be voting on except in designated closed sessions such as those held before City Council meetings to discuss litigation, personnel matters or labor negotiations. Officials may not confer directly, or through phone calls, intermediaries, text messages or other methods.</p><p>The letter highlights a statement by Mayor Torliatt at the Jan. 4 council meeting as evidence. At the start of the meeting, Torliatt said that the council would “probably be continuing” the decision on the final environmental review to the next meeting. Later in the meeting, the council majority of Torliatt, Barrett, Glass and Renée all voted to approve a proposal by Glass to push the vote on the review to the Jan. 25 meeting. Regency alleges that the majority agreed “in remarkably similar terms” to the delay and considers this evidence that the members met and decided to vote together to delay the vote.</p><p>All four council members denied any meetings.</p><p>“This is a typical developer tactic to try to force an elected body to succumb to a developer's demands,” said Torliatt, citing a recent, similar case in Napa County over a Pope Valley development. “I believe the public should see through this veiled attempt,” she added.</p><p>Torliatt said that she knew that the Jan. 4 meeting would include lengthy discussion by council members and plenty of public comment, which would probably force the meeting to go late. She said her statement was simply an attempt to inform the public that the meeting would probably be long and that the council would not be able to address all agenda items that night.</p><p>Councilmember Renée said that Regency “jumped to conclusions.”</p><p>“If the Brown Act was violated, it was done without me,” said Councilmember Barrett. “I am really conscious of that kind of thing.”</p><p>In the letter, Regency demanded that the city correct the alleged violation within 30 days or else it will take legal action. Regency's attorneys would not comment on what kinds of corrections they are seeking. </p><p>A Regency spokesperson said that the company has no comment at this time. </p><p>(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)</p>