No Transparency Rules Violated with Blair Park Agreements, City Attorney Says

Although they had been signed weeks earlier, two agreements related to the proposed development of Blair Park were released by the city only last month. The disclosure prompted the Piedmont Civic Association to ask how the agreements could have been made without a public hearing or city council vote, or even notice of a closed session discussion in an itemized agenda.

City Attorney Tom Curry says the answer is simple: both agreements have to do with anticipated litigation.

While the council is required to specify an existing lawsuit being discussed in closed session, that Brown Act rule doesn't apply to litigation that has yet to be filed.

Opponents of the proposed sports field have repeatedly submitted comments in writing and at public forums threatening to sue should the development of Blair Park be approved. Friends of Moraga Canyon has even sought legal advice and solicited donations to support potential legal action.

"There have consistently been a number of threats made," Curry said. "I take these threats—as does the council, as does Geoff [Grote, City Administrator]—very seriously."

Discussion of potential litigation was listed on the council's closed session agenda for half a dozen meetings between March 21, when the council held its on the proposed development of Blair Park, and Sept. 19, by which time both agreements had been signed.

On July 25, City Administrator Geoff Grote, acting as the city's representative, signed a retainer agreement with Craigie, McCarthy & Clow, LLP for help in the preparation and review of additional study of the for the project with respect to the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act. On Aug. 12 Grote signed a with the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) in which the backers of the development promise to foot the legal bill for the city's defense and cover any damages should such lawsuits be filed.

Had the council finalized the retainer and reimbursement and idemnification agreements in a closed session, under Brown Act rules the council would have had to reconvene in open session to report those actions and provide copies to anyone requesting the documents within 24 hours. But instead the council directed Grote to sign the agreements later, once the other parties involved had done so, Curry explained.

The council's closed session discussions of those agreements, according to Curry, also dealt with what the strengths and weaknesses of the city's position would be in potential lawsuits and what kind of settlements the city would be willing to make.

"That's something that clearly goes to the heart of the city's interests," Curry said.

Though he hadn't considered whether detailing in a meeting agenda what anticipated litigation was being discussed could have compromised the city's position, Curry said that airing the discussions publicly certainly would have put the city at a disadvantage.

"I am satisfied that we have done things consistent with what the [Brown] act requires," he said.

Do you think the city should have been more transparent about the discussions of the agreements relating to the proposed development of Blair Park?