Guest Editorial: Sue Williamson
Following is Sue Williamson's 3 minute address regarding the ballot initiatives to the Ojai City Council meeting of 2/13/07 during the community comment period. She follows it with a brief description of Monte Widders response:
I would like to speak to the fact that you, the City Council, following the advice of your lawyer, Monte Widders, filed a lawsuit against a citizen of this city who was exercising his legally protected right to propose an initiative for the consideration of Ojai voters. This was a slap in the face to all the people of Ojai.
I would like to remind the counsel that according to the California Constitution: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”After witnessing for many years the refusal of this counsel to meet its responsibility to provide for low income housing, and instead cater to the financial elite, it seemed totally appropriate and even required that the initiative process be used for this issue. But whether you agree with that or not the initiative process is clearly defined by the Election Code.
And I quote: “Within 15 days after the proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the city elections official a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure.... In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” It says nothing about the right of the lawyer to decide to throw out the initiative.
There is something very fishy and very improper when our city attorney, not only does not perform his required duties, but initiates a lawsuit against the petitioner. And for the city counsel to co-conspire in this form of intimidation is malfeasance of the highest order. And when you had the chance to drop this whole thing you chose not to.
Now I understand that this attorney will be asking for $20,000 in fees. And the fees to come in defending his actions in a court of appeals could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I feel this is a truly tragic day for the city of Ojai, and there are going to be serious consequences for this ill considered attempt to steal away the rights of Ojai citizens.
I suggest that you refuse those fees based on the fact that he failed to correctly inform you of the legal issues, and that you immediately relieve Mr. Widders of his duties so that he no longer profits at the taxpayers expense. I also suggest you find a lawyer who will work FOR and WITH the citizens of Ojai, rather than against us. While I am as a rule against using lawsuits to accomplish what dialogue can achieve, as it stands now, a taxpayers lawsuit to prevent waste may be the only avenue left if you fail to act.
Mr. Widders responded to me and others who spoke with the following comments:
“Joshua is not a lawyer but made a gross misstatement. The judge said, ‘Widders was well within his official duties to deny Mr. Furchtenicht’s request to title & summarize.” This is directly contrary to what Mr. Joshua said.”
“The judge said: ‘SLAPP suit denied because Mr. Furchtenicht caused Mr. Widders to bring the lawsuit by not withdrawing the initiatives. Once Mr. Furchtenicht was informed that the initiatives were unconstitutional he should have taken them back. But he did not. Mr. Widders was compelled to bring the action, not by me but by Mr. Furchtenicht.”
“That was the judges opinion, not mine.”
“It was not the right to petition, Sue, but the failure to withdraw that caused the lawsuit.”
So, as you can see, Mr. Widders just refuses to acknowledge that the judge threw out his case with the following ruling:
Having considered the submitted matter, the Court rules as follows: Demurrer to 1st Amended COMPLAINT of WIDDERS as to JEFF B FURCHTENICHT sustained without leave to amend. SLAPP Motion is also denied.
Instead Widders focuses on the judges refusal to grant a SLAPP against Widders for filing the case in the first place.
Without going into great detail here, and falling into the trap Widders is trying to set to engulf us in arguments about side issues that are irrelevant, suffice it to say that he has now made it imperative that Jeff appeal the case and we must thank our lucky stars that the ACLU has stepped in for free to defend our constitutional rights against a lawyer and city council gone power grabbing mad!
- Sue Williamson
Ojai, CA
| Permalink | author bio | 
Comments (6)
Thank you Sue for a little clarity on this important issue. The OVN's shameful reportage on this has been 180 degrees wrong. I'm so glad to hear that the ACLU is stepping in to defend Mr. Furchtenicht's and our rights under California Law.
Comment #1 Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2007 02:25 PM
I've read a good amount about this subject but one thing eludes me: ?What made these petitions "unconstitutional" in Widders mind, that the the court seemed to agree with?
Another question that comes to mind:
?Is their a law that compels the instruments of the city to withdraw or demand a withdraw of a petition, thus, compelling the petitioner to do so on demand, when, said petition is simply believed to be unconstitutional?
In any event, the city within the law or not, Blew It!
?How many times have we seen laws passed by the legislature, by initiative and by executive order only to be struck down later?
The city would have been smarter to have let the petitions move forward, warning the public about their unconstitutionality. Then pursue court action, or to save money, explain to a private party to take up the action on the city's behalf, because it is in their self interest. I know that sounds cynical, but isn't that politics?
Another path they could have chosen (this is the one I like) would be to put up an alternate referendum to compete for the hearts and minds of Ojaians.
But that would mean that the city council would have to take up an issue that they duct so successfully, until now.
One last comment. I liked Sue's letter-most eloquent and articulate.
Dana
Comment #2 Posted by: Dana and Alyeska | February 28, 2007 07:22 PM
"What made these petitions "unconstitutional" in Widders mind?"
For some people, the rule of law is merely an instrument of one's perceived self-interest. For people who think like this, when they are faced with something that is inconvenient for them, such as the petitions, there are two possibilities: first, if there is some statute or rule that can be stretched on their side, the inconvenient activity is "illegal." If they can't find any statute or rule, or if the existing statutes and rules are against them, its 'unconstitutional."
The petitions were inconvenient. The statutes say Widders must process them and get out of the way. Therefore, they are "unconstitutional" and must be blocked.
Where did the judge "agree" that the petitions were unconstitutional? In fact, didn't the judge rule that Widders had no valid lawsuit and throw him out of court?
Comment #3 Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2007 08:56 PM
Anonymous: I stand corrected. Your last paragraph is more accurate than my account. but there was more in what the judge said.
How I came to my conclusion about the judge agreeing with Widders in his decision:
In his decision, the judge said that (as you stated) Widders did not have a valid suit. But in that same decision (paraphrasing) he says that Widders need not have originated the suit, for he had the power/right to do what he did.
I took this to mean what Widders did in fact was legal: Widders withholding the petition on constitutional grounds, which is what Widders claimed in his action.
?Where are we now?
J.F. and ACLU are going to slap it to the city, and rightfully so. But I don't want more city treasury wasted on this.
If I were the Mayor, I would reach out to J.F. and ACLU, give an apology, work something out, including Widders dismissal.
Widders has been an unmitigated disaster for the City of Ojai and her citizens. I also question the wisdom of those on the council who supported him.
Dana
Comment #4 Posted by: Dana | March 1, 2007 08:29 AM
It's time to mobilize against the council and here's why... Originally when the city decided to take this issue to court " which was down played by Monte and the City Manager for certain reasons, Was to seek legal clarification on an issue which I guess is ambiguous, which is... " what jurisdiction does a city attorney have for interpreting initiatives that are put in front of that person... Seems logical and specific council members such as David Bury and Rae Hanstead had reiterated this rational or rhetoric, if you will which under my interpretation means that the council believed that this legal dispute was one to seek clarification through the courts, hence granting Monte the right to file the "Declaratory Relief," action which in other words just means a ruling from a judge on whether or not Monte can refuse to process certain initiatives that he feels are "legally problematic."
With all this said...
The Judge came up with a ruling which threw Montes' "Declaratory Relief" Action out the door mainly because it has no legal merit. In other words there is no legal basis to have brought this issue to court or no rules to have warranted it necessary for Monte to have brought this to court.
Judge Riley added some personal comments to his ruling which in summary, implied that Monte was in the right to have denied Jeff's' initiatives and said that it was what he would have done as well...
That's great but unfortunately that really isn't legally binding but qualifies more under opinion which unless Riley is willing to make a constitutional ruling "which he did not," is then irrelevant.
Here's the problem...
Monte has been trumpeting Riley's "commentary" as what should be fact regarding the ruling and minimizing the fact that the case was actually thrown out! Sound familiar? This seems to be the trend in Washington as well...
Normally I wouldn't care about a bunch of incompetent backwoods lawyers and judges, but for some reason Monte has convinced the majority of the council to file a counter appeal against Jeff's' appeal seeking a ruling that would basically make it legal for city attorneys to interpret what initiatives are worthy of consideration or not, hence giving city attorneys the authority to directly affect the democratic right to submit initiatives without oversight.
My problem is that the council decided to go along with this probably with the exception of Carol Smith because the vote was 4-1 in favor. This counter appeal could cost us tax payers thousands of dollars and in my opinion is ridiculous, especially because the original argument against Jeff's' initiatives is that they were vague so the city needed to seek legal clarification. But now they are beyond that claiming legally that they want people like monte to be able to make such judgment in the future. "Very Expensive!!!"
So in closing what is the motivations behind this???
Either Jeff's' initiatives really struck a chord with the council members which implies conspiracy and corruption, which means they need to go...
Or... This means that they are incredibly, stupid where they could be bureaucrats at best!!! Which also means that they need to go...
Regardless, it's very clear that the council needs to go and I'm willing to lead a coalition to accomplish this and ask any conscious citizen to join the fight!
This lawsuit has revealed allot more than disputed initiatives, it has revealed the nature of the council, regardless of individuals of the council are aware of it or not... They are suppressing democracy, and for this they need to leave...
Duffy Mcpherson
Comment #5 Posted by: duffy | March 4, 2007 04:43 PM
Duffy, your are right. Ojai's City Council has got to go. At the very least they should resign for trying to thwart democracy and for trying to set a precedent in California Constitutional Law for a "pocket veto" against citizen sponsored direct democracy. California's hard won direct democracy, initiative and recall statutes have been on the books for nearly one hundred years; now the Ojai city council and Monte Widders think they can come along and spend our money to overturn all of that.
Think I'm lying or exaggerating? Then why has the ACLU, the United States' largest civil rights organization, joined the appeal against the City for using a SLAPP suit against Jeff? How much is this going to cost the city? How much has it already cost us? On one day alone, Monte and two associates showed up at court (three lawyers) to beg the judge for a continuance because they weren't ready for the case that Jeff's lawyer put up. That day cost the city over one thousand dollars. What we know for sure is that they've paid Monte's firm more that $20,000.00 for this travesty. That amount is for hours billed to the city by Widders' firm in October and November, the period that the judge threw the case out of court because it had no merit. The majority of the work done on this case had to have happened in the August/September period. We don't have Widders' bill for that period, but it was probably at least as high as the Oct/Nov period. So basically the city has already spent over $40,000.00 of our money to sue a citizen of Ojai for exercising his constitutional rights! That's insane! WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING?
Because Steve Olsen wasn't on the council at the time, all but he voted to thwart democracy by suing Jeff and "50 john does to be determined later". Rae Hanstad, Joe DeVito, Sue Horgan and Carol Smith should resign for having done this. Not to let Steve Olsen off the hook, he said he was against the lawsuit during the election only to win and then vote with Rae Hanstad, Sue Horgan and Joe DeVito to spend MORE money and file a CROSS-APPEAL! Funny way to be against the lawsuit. Steve Olsen should resign too. Carol Smith, to her credit, seems to have regurgitated the Kool-Aid and actually voted against authorizing Monte Widders to spend even more money on this doomed lawsuit HE filed. She might be the only council-person who knows what ACLU stands for. Perhaps Carol can be forgiven and not asked to resign, but only if she does the following:
1) Apologize publicly for trying to block the initiative process by voting for the lawsuit against Jeff.
2) Acknowledge that a cross appeal by the city is an attempt to damage California's nearly 100 year old direct democracy initiative process by enshrining a precedent in California Constitutional Law for a "pocket veto" for city attorneys.
3) Promise to never allow another SLAPP suit on her watch.
4) Promise to work toward and eventually remove Monte Widders as Ojai's city attorney.
5) and Vote to cease all legal proceedings in this case.
In fact, maybe all of the city council would like to come out and perform the above mae culpa. That is the only way I can see that they should be allowed to remain in their seats. Let's not forget that the very same statutes that allow California citizens to petition for initiatives also allows us to RECALL representatives who are not representing us. The council can still dodge this freight train by doing the above 5 things, otherwise it is our duty to seek their resignations or recall them in order to protect out rights.
Sean P. Keenan
Comment #6 Posted by: Sean P. Keenan | March 6, 2007 01:14 PM