As announced by the city attorney regarding action taken during closed session tonight, the four RPA City Council majority members, McLaughlin, Jimenez, Martinez and Willis, voted to instruct the city attorney to file a brief in the lawsuit SPRAWLDEF et al v. the City of Richmond , et al, that agrees with the petitioners instead of defending the City. The action was opposed by Johnson, Bates and Butt.

You may recall that the subject lawsuit was initially filed claiming the City Council violated the Brown Act in approving the Point Molate settlement of another prior federal case, The Guidiville Rancheria of California v. The United States of America.  The Guidiville settlement, effectuated through a stipulated judgment entered by the district court in that action, resolved six years of litigation against the City over the re-use of Point Molate. The settlement became a federal court judgment and ultimately resulted in the City approving a development agreement and disposition and development agreement with SunCal – fully entitling SunCal to develop the property and obligating the City to cooperate in defending any litigation challenging the entitlements.

The SPRAWLDEF Brown Act lawsuit was previously heard by the federal District Court, which held in favor of the City.

The petitioners then appealed the district court decision to the 9th Circuit, and the City and its attorneys were in the final process this week of filing a brief opposing the appeal and supporting the prior District Court decision n favor of the City. In an unprecedented and desperate move, four City Council members instructed the city attorney not to oppose the appeal but instead to support it!

This action constitutes a breach of contract the City has with the developer and a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It exposes the City to expensive litigation that could run into the millions of dollars, could result in sanctions or contempt, and could ultimately expose the City to risks of losing as much as hundred million dollars – thus bankrupting the City.

Not surprisingly, the city attorney intends to carry out the direction. I have advised the city attorney that her ultimate loyalty is not the City Council but instead a higher fiduciary duty to the people of Richmond who have been placed at unprecedented risk by this action. She has a choice to resign rather than carry out this insane plan, but apparently has chosen job security over the interests of the City.

I’ve seen a lot of crazy things in my 26 years on the Richmond City Council, but this beats any of them by far.