Two Laguna Beach city councilmembers will face a censure vote at the mayor’s recommendation on Tuesday for leaking information from a closed session meeting about Hotel Laguna.
Mayor Bob Whalen believes that councilmembers Toni Iseman and George Weiss should be censured for sharing information about a June 29 closed session action with Mark and Sharon Fudge, a Laguna Beach couple appealing elements of Hotel Laguna’s remodel to the California Coastal Commission.
“By divulging confidential closed session information and/or confirming the accuracy of confidential information improperly disclosed, Councilmembers Weiss and Iseman have undermined the integrity of the City Council’s operations and deliberations,” Whalen wrote in a report.
City Attorney Phil Kohn said no action was taken at the closed session that required a public disclosure when the City Council subsequently reconvened in open session.
The conflict came to a head on July 27 when Mark Fudge, speaking during un-agendized public comments, said that he met with Iseman, Weiss, and former mayor Paul Freeman earlier that month to discuss the city’s handling of reopening Hotel Laguna.
“[Community Development Director] Marc Wiener apparently presented a project for getting the hotel opened up, and was seeking to get the red tags removed so that the project can move forward. A vote was held. Bob Whalen, Sue Kempf and Peter Blake voted in the affirmative,” Fudge said.
Weiss later confirmed to the Independent that he did share confidential information about the closed session because he believes the discussion was inappropriately described as related to “anticipated litigation” when it actually related to the partial withdraw of Hotel Laguna’s latest red tag. An item about Hotel Laguna should have appeared on the agenda and the related vote publicly shared, he said.
“When a closed door session is violating the Brown Act I have to do something about it,” Weiss said Wednesday. “That transgression is much graver than mine. It was against the residents themselves who should have been informed.”
Iseman denied leaking confidential information but declined to comment further before she read the staff report on Whalen’s censure recommendation. She has previously defended herself saying she arrived at the meeting with Fudge an hour and a half late and doesn’t know what was said by the attendees beforehand.
Weiss and Iseman were aware of the City Council’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of the information discussed at the June 29 closed session and of their legal obligation to maintain confidentiality, Whalen wrote. But based on Mark Fudge’s written communications and public comments, Whalen concluded Weiss and Iseman made a unilateral decision to voluntarily disclose confidential information.
“To better ensure future compliance by all Councilmembers with the confidentiality requirements of the Brown Act, it is important not to ignore the improper disclosures described above and to have the full City Council address this matter and determine the appropriate response,” When wrote.
In a phone interview with the Independent on Thursday, Fudge said he considers Iseman and Weiss as whistleblowers, adding that they should not be censured for helping bring a major project back into the public domain.
“It’s remarkable that [Whalen and other councilmembers] accept my word without investigation outside of what I had to say in my comments,” he said. “I think it shows a lack of judgment.”
If a majority of councilmembers vote in support of censure, it will be the second time in five months that the panel will have admonished one of their own over conduct. Councilmember Peter Blake was censured in March for referring to Iseman with derogatory language. This marked the first time the City Council had enforced a decorum and civility policy adopted in 2019.
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold a hybrid meeting with the opportunity for comments from community members attending in-person and via Zoom at 5 p.m. on Tuesday.
So George Weiss couldn’t bother to understand the Brown Act after he became a City Council Member so he has set himself above the law because of his extensive experience?! his law degree (hmmm) So he decided not to obey the law. I am sure there is a formal process to object if you believe that the standard for closed session is being violated. Did you consult the city attorney? instead your answer was to run to ONE citizen in the city and share confidential information… great job George I believe you continue to show how truly unqualified you are to be sitting on that daise. You admitted to violating the law, second brilliant move on your part. can’t wait to see what happens next.
When it’s about, impacts or affects him directly, Bob grows a spine. It took him months to react to Peter Blake’s alleged transgressions, holding his finger to his political future wind direction.
The rest of the time he’s what I’ve branded him: Spineless Bob The Placator.
He talks out of both sides of his political mouth, wishy-washy, indecisive, his ethics negotiable and ephemeral, moving targets, guess this time HIS ox was gored?
He’s only mayor (again) because of the Council’s polarity, and epitomizes compromise—instead of passing the gavel to another Councilmember per usual.
Like the Frenchman Maistre said “Every country has the government it deserves.”
Jefferson said “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
Or homegrown Baltimore cynic, H. L. Mencken “People deserve the government they get…and they deserve it good and hard.”
I myself or one of my associates has come into possession of closed session info for several decades, shared it innumerable times, gossipy bs. Usually it’s communicated verbally, not via written communications.
Remember when Claude Raines in the movie CASABLANCA says to Humphrey Bogart “OMG, I’m shocked, illegal gambling is taking place in Rick’s? Round up the usual suspects!”
Well, I’ll bet this year’s wages that ALL of these Councilmembers and their predecessors have leaked information in one way or another.
They’re politicians, bureaucrats, that’s how they control, reward and manage their minions. So suddenly Bob or We, The Sheeple, are shocked?
What about Robotic Bob? Would one of his inner circle please rent him CASABLANCA? Then give him some acting lessons as a birthday present so’s he can feign shock and outrage at a higher emotional, simulacrum of a human level?
I’d suggest surgery to have a permanent spinal implant, but he’d just slither off the operating table.
Why should any of this be kept confidential?
Roger, this is just plain nonsense. Mr. Whalen witnessed a possible corruption in the ranks and acted. As the details are revealed, we’ll all have the opportunity to make up our own minds about the severity of the transgressions. As for the two accused, Mr. Weiss is either in over his head, or is lacking the integrity to function in his position—likely both. Ms. Iseman could teach a master class in deflection and avoiding responsibility. We may deserve this incompetent governance, but in failing to hold these folks accountable we will never achieve something better.
I will ask again. The corruption exposed was the unpermitted work done at Hotel Laguna while the public officials claimed ignorance. Now that it has been exposed, why does the City want to keep anything about work being done or the permitting process confidential? More corruption or an attempt to cover tracks? We need more transparency on these decisions, not less.
Ray, this article is about an allegation that 2 counsel-members acted in a corrupt manner when they leaked confidential information to Mr Fudge. The article does not address the reason the session was closed beyond this: “City Attorney Phil Kohn said no action was taken at the closed session that required a public disclosure…” To his credit (or as further evidence of his poor judgement) Mr Weiss has publicly admitted to leaking confidential information to Mr Fudge. Ms Iseman, a more seasoned councilor, is comfortable moving forward in denial mode, and in contrast to Mr Whalen’s conclusion that “Weiss and Iseman made a unilateral decision to voluntarily disclose confidential information.” Mr Fudge, the recipient of the confidential information, finds it “remarkable” and a “lack of judgement” that the counsil-members would take him at his word.
Amen Ray Tang! This is the crux of the problem – WHY was this Hotel Laguna City stop work order discussion ever put on a closed session agenda by the City Manager, City Council or City Attorney in the first place? Doesn’t matter if they took any action or not…WHY did it warrant a closed session discussion by our city leaders? Was this closed session decision an attempt to try to find a way to behind the scenes fix Mr. Honarkar’s blatant disregard for our government building regulations and system? Looks to me like just another slick insider attempt by City Manager Shohreh Dupuis, City Attorney Phil Kohn’s, Mayor Whalen, Mayor Pro-Tem Kempf and Peter Blake’s to provide special treatment to Mr. Honarkar/LBC and to basically stop Council members Weiss and Iseman from openly (publicly) opposing their decisions. And then there’s the issue of payback to CC Weiss for officially moving to censure Peter Blake because Mayor Whalen would not do his job until being forced to do so. Bottom line is that we now have a completely dysfunctional city council who are more interested in “gotcha” moments than behaving like logical, respectful and responsible leaders in place to serve the public. This cancerous infighting council behavior began in 2018 with the influence of Liberate Laguna Forward PAC and their promotion of self-proclaimed Mr. Monster Peter Blake and Sue Kempf to public office. Both of these non-transparent council members need to be rejected if they run for election in 2022 as clearly they are showing that they are simply not capable of representing equally and fairly all stakeholders of Laguna Beach. They clearly represent only the LLF PAC pro-Developer/Investor agendas. I’m personally pleased that such corruptive behavior going on inside city hall and within our city council is finally getting exposed and that city leaders still exists who think honestly and integrity are still important when holding public office. Voters don’t support sneaky and non-transparent public official behavior or we will all lose.
From the Brown Act.
>>>>
The duty of maintaining confidentiality, of course, must give way to the obligation to disclose improper matters or discussions that may come up in closed sessions. In recognition of this public policy, the Brown Act exempts from its prohibition against disclosure of closed session communications disclosure of closed session information to the district attorney or the grand jury due to a perceived violation of law, expressions of opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal action, and disclosing information that is not confidential
>>>>
So explain why unpermitted work to the Hotel Laguna restaurant should remain confidential. IMO those attending the meeting had an obligation to disclose that something improper is happening.
Ray Tang,
THANK YOU, for your thoughtful response & publication of what is percieved to be an impropriety taking place in City Hall. The continued blatant lack of public transparency of these “Closed Session” discussions in private meetings for matters that may gravely affect our community.
MJ – Not interested in Gotha gaming. Issue is really how City got down this path of continued attempts to end run Coastal Commission review of projects. In this case for the sole benefit of an individual with questionable business practices and little benefit to the City as Paul Freeman pointed out in his letter. I was under the impression that the work will allow the Hotel to reopen completely, not just the restaurant portion. I think most are under the same impression. My guess is that our City has very low credibility with CCC with whether projects are really in the public interest, let alone following rules.
Ray, you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. You assume that this particular closed session meeting was improper. But closed session meetings must be approved by our city attorney Phil Kohn, who has decades of experience dealing with the requirements of the Brown Act. Personally, I would trust his legal judgment over Toni and George’s. But your quote from the Brown Act is exactly what Toni and George did NOT do if they believed the closed session was in violation of the rules. Instead, one or both of them spoke with Mark Fudge, who is trying to persuade the Coastal Commission to block the work on the Hotel Laguna. To my mind, this is way way out of bounds and merits censure.
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” The Brown Act (1953)
Facts: Phil works for Rutan & Tucker.
The cities of San Clemente and San Juan Capo WERE represented by Rutan & Tucker.
Their contracts were not renewed a while back, SC & SJC are now represented by Best Best & Krieger.
Irvine showed R&T the door for years but then brought them back, which remains a sore point, a source of controversy for residents to this day.
Laguna Hills and Rancho Santa Margarita use Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart. Mission Viejo Harper & Burns.
Research reveals that Newport & Huntington Beach have their own, non-law firm affiliated attorneys
So with all due respect Mr. Quilter, R&T are not the epitome of legal astuteness. Charging only $150/hour or so, you get what you pay for: Attorneys too lazy or inept to make it in the private sector? Or do they make up the difference by over-billing, padding invoices?
Maybe we need shop around, to look at hiring a different firm or have our own in-house. We keep getting in squabbles with the SD Water Board, Coastal Commission, et al……so perhaps a change would do us good?
Or at least put in on a CC agenda, let’s air this out in public!
Chris, there will always be incomplete information on almost all controversial matters. Kohn says nothing to see here. Perhaps you can explain what the litigation risk here is IF Honarkar alone is responsible for un-permitted work. Maybe he feels he is not solely responsible for carrying on with the un-permitted work so that there in lies the litigation risk? The latter must be the case for Kohn to give his rubber stamp. If the latter is the case, don’t the public deserve some understanding of how the City ended up in this situation in the first place and wasting money on more litigation?
Transparency should have been the policy from the beginning to avoid this type of detritus.