Council Debates Muzzling Holden on Return of Raiders

The City Council on Tuesday staged an unprecedented debate on how to best silence Councilman Nate Holden--or at least avoid paying his legal bills--if he is sued over his one-man quest to bring the Oakland Raiders back to Los Angeles.

Acting on the advice of a deputy city attorney, the council ultimately agreed that it probably cannot protect the city from having to pay legal fees if Oakland sues Holden.

But lawmakers seized the chance to blast Holden’s lonely campaign for the football team’s return.

“I totally disagree with you, Nate,” said Councilman Joel Wachs. “They [the Raiders] would be a disaster.”

Councilman Hal Bernson agreed: “They should stay there. I would oppose any attempt to bring Al Davis [the team’s owner] or the Raiders back to Los Angeles--ever.”

Holden, meanwhile, held another City Hall news conference Tuesday morning to tell reporters that he met with Oakland officials Monday for a “very, very, very nice” meeting.

Holden has been agitating for the Raiders since last month, when he announced that Davis and the National Football League were close to settling a lawsuit that would give Davis the territorial rights to the NFL’s franchise in the Los Angeles media market.

So far, however, everyone involved denies that the lawsuit is close to a settlement or that the Raiders are interested in returning.

Holden, however, battles on.

“I can speak and say what I choose,” he said Tuesday. “I never claimed to be representing the city or the City Council--nor do I pretend to. . . . The people are saying we need a team here.”

At a recent Lakers game, Holden said, he was told by the fans sitting around him that they want a professional football team back in Los Angeles.

Other council members, however, are increasingly concerned that Holden’s attention to what he believes is the voice of the people may land the city in court.

Some hinted that this issue is a painful reminder of the last time that the city was forced to defend Holden against sexual harassment lawsuits that cost the city dearly in outside legal fees.

*

Tim McOsker, the chief deputy city attorney, said Los Angeles would be required to defend the lawmaker if his actions are considered to be “within the course and scope” of his duties as a councilman.

Bernson tried to introduce a motion that specifically stated that Holden was outside that scope, but the other council members refused to go along with that. Holden also tried to introduce a motion saying that he is speaking solely for himself, outside his council duties. It went nowhere fast. He did, however, vote with the rest of the council on a motion by City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas to seek the city attorney’s opinion.

Wachs said: “I think Mr. Holden does have the right to speak his individual views. . . . You cannot go down this path.”

The council was particularly concerned by letters and comments made by Oakland officials who said that the Raiders have 13 seasons left there. An attorney for Oakland even sent Holden a letter warning him that he could subject himself to legal action if he is found to be interfering in that contract.

“The city of Oakland takes this very seriously,” said Mark Ridley-Thomas. “This is not being taken lightly at all.”

In his meeting in Oakland on Monday, Holden said that he wasn’t warned against speaking out and that he was told Davis has indicated a desire to leave Oakland.

“He’s been making that statement repeatedly that he wanted out,” Holden said. “They did not mention that I was interfering at all.”

In the end, Holden vowed to continue his efforts, saying he “will not be intimidated.”