Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 2, 2026 Page 2 body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (emphasis added) Here, following comments by a few disgruntled residents,you made a series of comments that exceeded the confines of Gov. Code, § 54954.2 in scope. Your statements were not a brief response, they did not ask a question for clarification, they went well beyond a brief announcement, did not constitute a brief report, and they did not request staff report at a subsequent publicly noticed meeting. Accordingly, your statements—even if well-intended -- constituted a violation of the Government Code's open meeting laws. Moreover, your statements were not based in fact, and are likely to be perceived by a reasonable person as defamatory. (Your comments included statements such as "I'm not particularly a fan of Kingsley," "Kingsley sued us twice,""Kingsley has been difficult to work with,""Kingsley does not have the best reputation in the state," and that you will "make sure the management company complies.") Your sponsorship of negative comments and opinion statements against Kingsley is troubling because the meetings are available for public view indefinitely. Your comments about Kingsley's legal actions are disturbing because it punished them for exercising their right of access to court challenging government action that exceeded its authority in the area of mobilehome park law reserved for State enforcement. Indeed, when the City made several modifications to the ordinances in apparent acknowledgement that the area was reserved for the State of California, Kingsley's legal actions were dismissed. Instead of respecting the exercise of rights,your comments could be viewed as in retaliation for having done so. Other statements you made falsely portrayed Kingsley's practices as to its residents. Kingsley followed all appropriate statutory procedures with its residents. Attorney Ariel Bedell successfully handled unlawful detainers and other enforcement actions that were alluded to in the comments by residents, to which you made comments in response. Indeed, prior to your making negative comments, Ms. Bedell appeared before the City Council to address the concerns of the residents. Ms. Bedell publicly explained the procedures used and steps taken responsive to the residents' concerns. At the hearing prior to April 1, 2026, you admitted that you reviewed materials submitted by the residents and found Kingsley had complied with the law. You further admitted that the State of California controlled the relationship between the residents and the mobilehome park;, thus State law superseded the City's enforcement. Inexplicably, notwithstanding your earlier representations, you seemed to accept the disgruntled residents' comments wholesale without determining their factual basis, a position that might be viewed in a court of law as reckless. Indeed, some of those residents actually received significant sums of money to take care of the things of which they complained.