Council Silent on 'Nonaction' Against Cal
Devona Walker, Berkeley Daily Planet, February 20, 2002

City Is Not Taking Action against University over Expansion Plans

In closed session yesterday the city sealed the lid on a possible lawsuit against University of California Berkeley's plan to put a parking structure and offices on Berkeley's southside. But perhaps more importantly, it sealed the details of that closed session meeting by further deciding not to report on it -- disallowing councilmembers to speak about what took place behind closed doors.

The proposed construction has been protested by residents living near the northeast quadrant of the campus, claiming the EIR originally drafted for the project failed to address important environmental impacts of the construction and the new buildings.

Marie Felde, director of media relations for UC Berkeley, was unavailable yesterday but in the past had denied deficiencies in the EIR.

University officials extended the public comment period well beyond state requirements Felde said.

Approximately ten minutes before closing those doors, Council heard from some 15 or so residents all pleading for the city to move forward with the lawsuit.

Local activist L A Wood stood before City Council and told them that if they did not vote to proceed with the lawsuit citizens would not only remember but would also make them regret their decision.

Worthington said Council's decision shields certain members from facing angry constituents who wanted them to take a stand against the university.

"With them choosing not to report out, I can't tell you how I voted or how anyone else voted without violating that decree. Some people on council don't want others to know how they voted," Worthington said. "The average citizen will not know how their representative votes but wealthy companies sure can."

Worthington said the law does not require the city to disclose what happens in closed discussion unless an action is taken but that it does not prevent Council from doing so either. He also stated that he has historically argued in favor of disclosing as much information as possible to no avail.

"Council is not required to report what happens in closed session unless it takes action. We are not reporting on what happened in closed session today because no action was taken."

Worthington pointed to a prior closed session meeting where a large corporation who had contributed to the re-election campaign of a councilmember was quoted in the Daily Planet as saying his matter was voted down unanimously. "Clearly someone went back and told him. So this large corporation is allowed access and the public isn't," Worthington said.

The City Attorney would not say whether this "nonaction" gives the city the option of continuing the suit later.