Ruling in Carmel records lawsuit expected within days.

The decision is still out on the Royal Calkins vs. Carmel-by-the-Sea documents case, but a judge indicated it won’t be long before he makes a ruling.

On Friday, Sept. 7, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell listened to attorneys for both sides argue over the merits of why, or why not, the city should make public resume-related documents shared by Carmel City Attorney Glen Mozingo with the Carmel City Council in closed session on June 4.

The council declared in open session on June 5 that Mozingo had shared a number of documents to back up claims on his resume submitted in 2017 and that they were satisfied the claims were accurate.

The review came after repeated questions raised in the press about discrepancies in Mozingo’s resume, including recent blog posts by journalist Calkins, writing for Voices of Monterey Bay.

Within days, Calkins and The Weekly made requests under the California Public Records Act asking to see the documents. All requests were denied.

Calkins and his First Amendment attorney, Neil Shapiro, filed a lawsuit on July 9 seeking a judge’s order to compel the city to give them the documents.

“It looks to me like they’re public records,” O'Farrell said to Carmel Assistant City Attorney Jon Giffen on Friday, after Giffen argued that because the documents were shared in closed session, they are exempt from the Public Records Act.

Giffen also argued that the records were not public because they were connected to a personnel matter, and that the council was facing potential future litigation by Calkins. Both of those are exceptions to the Brown Act, California's open-meetings rule. 

O’Farrell pointed out that Calkins was not asking for any of the discussions that took place within the closed session, “just the bare documents. No one is seeking any internal discussions or anything of that nature.”

The judge suggested that the city could not “cloak” the documents by because they were used in closed session only.

O'Farrell indicated he was nearly ready to issue a ruling, and said, “I do have some obvious feelings and could make a ruling now, but I’ll take it under submission.” That written ruling could be issued as early as next week.  

The contract for the city's legal team has been a subject of debate in Carmel City Hall in recent months. In addition to Giffen, Mozingo and Deputy City Attorney Gerard Rose were also present in the courtroom Friday morning.

Mozingo’s contract was renewed by a vote of 4-1 by the Council on Aug. 6, for five years at $30,000 a month to pay for legal services provided by him and up to two other attorneys. (Councilmember Bobby Richards was the lone “no” vote.)

Several residents pleaded with the Council to postpone a decision until after the records case was resolved. Their request was met with defensive and defiant remarks by councilmembers Carrie Theis and Carolyn Hardy, as well as Mayor Steve Dallas, who maintained Mozingo is doing a good job representing the city.