D.A. Calls for Ouster of Oxnard City Council : Brown Act: Michael D. Bradbury says the elected officials have violated the open meeting law. They blame politics for the attack.

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, frustrated by a series of alleged violations of the state’s open meeting law by the Oxnard City Council, Thursday called on city residents to vote the council out of office.

“The public should be outraged that elected officials are not willing to abide by the law,” he told The Times. “If they want city business to continue to be conducted behind closed doors they should preserve the status quo. But if they want officials who follow the law they should vote in a new council.

“The solution has to be political because under the present law there’s not a lot our office can do. I’m tired of spending money on investigations; I wish I could bill the city of Oxnard for all the time it takes up.”

Bradbury’s comments touched off a wave of criticism from Oxnard officials, some of whom said his attack was politically motivated.

“The district attorney is a very political person and very politically astute. He wants to be reelected. He’s always looking at other positions and would like to run for statewide office,” Councilman Manuel Lopez said.

“He would like nothing better than convict several visible people to enhance his stature,” Lopez added.

City Atty. Gary Gillig said Bradbury is exploiting the issue for political gain. “Bradbury aspires to higher office. I think that’s his motivation in promoting the view that Oxnard conducts business in secret, and I disagree.” Furthermore, Gillig added, Bradbury attacks politicians and city officials who oppose his views.

“He’s been after several politicians, and he’s been after me for some time,” Gillig said. “I don’t want to get into a controversy, but he should look into the nepotism charges against his own office.”

The Ralph M. Brown Act is California’s open meeting law governing public agencies. Under the act, public agencies can only meet in closed-door sessions to discuss pending litigation, personnel matters or real estate transactions.

A 1990 Ventura County grand jury investigation determined that Oxnard’s City Council has violated the Brown Act four times since 1987 during closed meetings at which council members privately discussed city budget questions.

However, council members were absolved of criminal wrongdoing by the grand jury because there was no evidence that they were aware that they were committing the violations.

The district attorney’s office is investigating a new allegation that Oxnard’s City Council violated the Brown Act in March, but the attorney heading the investigation said Thursday that criminal charges are unlikely to be brought against city officials.

“Given the present state of the law, in the absence of a confession or a very large, heavy smoking gun, it is almost impossible to prove criminal intent,” said Don Coleman, special assistant to Bradbury in charge of investigating Brown Act violations.

By law, the district attorney’s office must investigate alleged Brown Act violations. Bradbury, who has called the Brown Act a “toothless tiger,” has asked state legislators to strengthen it by allowing district attorneys to file civil charges against violators.

Under civil law, plaintiffs do not have to prove that the Brown Act was violated knowingly to obtain a judgment, such as an injunction against the actions agreed upon in the closed meeting, Bradbury said. Now, only individuals and private groups, including news organizations, can file civil claims for Brown Act violations, Bradbury said.

Bradbury has also lobbied for legislation requiring that closed-door sessions be recorded, but city and county officials have blocked his initiative, he said.

Last month, Bradbury rebuked Gillig in a letter to the League of California Cities over his apparent disregard of the Brown Act.

The letter criticized a speech delivered by Gillig to the league last October in which he said the Brown Act can be easily ignored by cities.

“If you look hard and long enough at the Brown Act, in my opinion, you can virtually justify any situation with regards to closed sessions,” Gillig said in his speech. Bradbury took offense to Gillig’s remarks.

“We believe that the public has the right to know what their government is up to. We believe that public attorneys have a duty to make sure that right is protected,” Bradbury wrote in an April 4 letter to the league’s executive director, with copies to Gillig and Oxnard council members.

“The smug cavalier attitude towards these duties that Mr. Gillig has demonstrated in both his conduct and his recent remarks is disturbing,” Bradbury wrote.

The district attorney’s current investigation stems from a closed session in March to discuss a city request to its main water supplier for more water. Councilman Michael Plisky walked out of that meeting, saying the discussions should be held in public.

“I believe the city attorney’s attitude that everything can be discussed in a back room is a gross misrepresentation of the Brown Act,” Plisky said last week. “I don’t believe in secret government and I will do everything I can to stop it, but I only have one vote on the council.”

“We believe that in order to have good government, the Brown Act has to stand for something,” Coleman said. “You can’t say there’s enough ammunition to make everything subject to closed sessions.”

Oxnard City Manager Vern Hazen defended Gillig.

“Gary Gillig’s counsel to me regarding the Brown Act has been on the conservative side, in my opinion,” he said in a letter to the Oxnard City Council. “He has not attempted to ‘finagle’ the Brown Act nor have I asked him to.”

Gillig stands by his speech to the League of California Cities and his reading of the Brown Act. “Bradbury has his view, but I’m a professional and I have a different legal opinion,” he said. “I’ve always said that we can settle it in court, but he always takes it to the grand jury, and that’s not a level playing field.”

The Brown Act, Gillig said, “is a very ambiguous law, and I try to interpret it in a way that is favorable to my client.”

Mayor Nao Takasugi denied any wrongdoing by the council.

“In all the closed sessions I’ve been involved with, we had the city attorney with us and followed his advice. I feel comfortable that we never violated the Brown Act intentionally.”

But Bradbury said the council members violate the Brown Act knowingly, fully aware that criminal intent is all but impossible to prove.

“Even though I believe in their hearts they know it’s wrong, they hear what they want to hear, and Gillig gives them the advice they want to hear,” Bradbury said.

Lopez charged back: “I don’t tell the city attorney how to advise me, and to say otherwise is irresponsible. I don’t take my responsibility lightly, and I don’t violate the law knowingly.”

Bradbury denied that his actions were politically motivated.

“To say this is political, to make that kind of allegation is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” he said.

“When a council member walks out of a meeting because he believes the Brown Act is being violated, you can’t take it lightly, and it will take the citizens of that community to straighten things out.”