SR 10-10-2023 4E
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel – Considering Whether to Initiate Litigation –
Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Whittier, et al. v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, et al.; LASC Case No. 23STCP03579 (requested by
Councilmember Brock)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
4.E
Packet Pg. 102
1
Xavier Mota
From:Marianne O'Donnell <marianne@well.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 3:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Santa Monica City Council Meeting of 10/9/23 – Please say No to the new Zero Bail system
EXTERNAL
From: "Marianne O'Donnell" <marianne@well.com>
To: "gleam davis" <gleam.davis@santamonica.gov>, "oscar delatorre" <oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>, "lana
negrete" <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>, "phil brock" <phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, "jesse zwick"
<jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov>, "christine parra" <christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, "caroline torosis"
<caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov>, "David White" <david.white@santamonica.gov>, "doug sloan"
<doug.sloan@santamonica.gov>, "community affairs" <community.affairs@santamonica.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 3:29:44 PM
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting of 10/9/23 – Please say No to the new Zero Bail system
I understand that the City Council will consider joining a multiple city lawsuit over the County’s newly implemented Zero
Bail system at tomorrow’s meeting.
I urge the Council and City government to challenge this Zero Bail initiative, which will only encourage further crime in our
city, already plagued with more crime than we can sustain.
Reminder: so-called “petty crimes like property crimes, minor theft and vehicle violations” are not victimless.
Do you have any idea what the community has to put up with on a daily basis?
Constant property/vehicle violations that have already cost us hundreds of hard-earned dollars
Constant harassment in the street or at the store
We’re not longer able to take safe walks in our neighborhood at dawn at dusk (before/after work)
We can no longer safely enjoy our parks because of a free needle program that draws aggressive addicts
Etc., etc.
This new system is not “equitable justice,” as its proponents allege: what about justice for the victims, and why should
perpetrators be able to get away with crime free?
The dubious argument that the Zero Bail system doesn't lead to increased crime doesn't stand the everyday reality of our
streets. It’s an ill-conceived ideological initiative that will only make our community worse off than it already is.
Our beloved city is falling into lawless disarray, and this cannot endure:
Enough with being collateral damage to lax government policies
Enough with taxation without representation.
You are elected by voters, and our city government is funded by taxpayers: it is your duty to represent them, so please do
your job! Not doing so is akin to negligence and misrepresentation.
Please: join the lawsuit to repel that ill-considered Zero Bail system.
Thank you.
Marianne O'Donnell
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
2
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Marianne O'Donnell <marianne@well.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 3:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Santa Monica City Council Meeting of 10/10/23 – Please say No to the new Zero Bail system
EXTERNAL
From: "Marianne O'Donnell" <marianne@well.com>
To: "gleam davis" <gleam.davis@santamonica.gov>, "oscar delatorre" <oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>, "lana
negrete" <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>, "phil brock" <phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, "jesse zwick"
<jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov>, "christine parra" <christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, "caroline torosis"
<caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov>, "David White" <david.white@santamonica.gov>, "doug sloan"
<doug.sloan@santamonica.gov>, "community affairs" <community.affairs@santamonica.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 3:29:44 PM
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting of 10/10/23 – Please say No to the new Zero Bail system
I understand that the City Council will consider joining a multiple city lawsuit over the County’s newly implemented Zero
Bail system at tomorrow’s meeting.
I urge the Council and City government to challenge this Zero Bail initiative, which will only encourage further crime in our
city, already plagued with more crime than we can sustain.
Reminder: so-called “petty crimes like property crimes, minor theft and vehicle violations” are not victimless.
Do you have any idea what the community has to put up with on a daily basis?
Constant property/vehicle violations that have already cost us hundreds of hard-earned dollars
Constant harassment in the street or at the store
We’re not longer able to take safe walks in our neighborhood at dawn at dusk (before/after work)
We can no longer safely enjoy our parks because of a free needle program that draws aggressive addicts
Etc., etc.
This new system is not “equitable justice,” as its proponents allege: what about justice for the victims, and why should
perpetrators be able to get away with crime free?
The dubious argument that the Zero Bail system doesn't lead to increased crime doesn't stand the everyday reality of our
streets. It’s an ill-conceived ideological initiative that will only make our community worse off than it already is.
Our beloved city is falling into lawless disarray, and this cannot endure:
Enough with being collateral damage to lax government policies
Enough with taxation without representation.
You are elected by voters, and our city government is funded by taxpayers: it is your duty to represent them, so please do
your job! Not doing so is akin to negligence and misrepresentation.
Please: join the lawsuit to repel that ill-considered Zero Bail system.
Thank you.
Marianne O'Donnell
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
2
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Anjuli Kronheim Katz <akronhe1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject:Re: Closed Session E Item
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Honorable Councilmembers:
"Innocent until proven guilty” is a bedrock principle of the American justice system, and yet with a cash bail system,
hundreds of thousands of people are locked up in local jails without being convicted of any crime. They are behind bars
because they can’t afford bail. Not only is this an injustice, it is also the source of further injustices in the rates of
conviction and incarceration: people jailed before trial are more likely to be convicted than people who can afford bail
and are released pre‐trial. Like many other aspects of the criminal justice system, money bail also disproportionately
harms people of color; for example, bail amounts for black men average 35% higher than for white men. Further, it
wastes billions of tax dollars across the country to hold people who have not been convicted of a crime; billions of tax
dollars that could go towards education, healthcare and mental health services. I could go on about reasons I disagree
with the injustices of the cash bail system.
The issue in front of you today is outrageous. The cash bail system was already found to be unconstitutional in the State
of California in 2021. This question has already been answered. To use the city's resources to join a lawsuit with another
city to have that question answered again for us by the same court would be an incredible waste of money and
resources and a move against progressive reforms in our justice system that I do not support.
PLEASE do not join this lawsuit with the city of Whittier.
Thank you,
Anjuli Kronheim Katz
Former Housing Commissioner 2015‐2019
‐‐
Anjuli Kronheim Katz
Cell: 484‐213‐4811
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Jon Katz <tmbjon@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Item 4E - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and Councilmembers:
Please do not use City resources to join the lawsuit to reinstate cash bail. Cash bail is a deeply flawed system that
perpetuates inequality and injustice within our criminal justice system. Cash bail unfairly penalizes individuals from
lower‐income backgrounds. It effectively criminalizes poverty, as those who cannot afford to pay bail are forced to
remain in jail while awaiting trial, often for minor offenses. This exacerbates economic disparities within our community.
Cash bail often results in the unnecessary and prolonged detention of individuals who have not been convicted of any
crime. This goes against the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and can have devastating
consequences for individuals, their families, and their livelihoods.
Studies have consistently shown that people of color are disproportionately affected by cash bail. African American and
Hispanic individuals are more likely to be assigned higher bail amounts and are less likely to be able to afford it, leading
to higher rates of pretrial detention.
Cash bail does not necessarily enhance public safety. It can lead to the release of dangerous individuals who can afford
to pay bail while detaining non‐violent individuals who pose no significant risk to the community. This undermines the
goal of our criminal justice system to protect the public.
Let's follow the wishes of California voters who, in 2022, voted to end the system of cash bail, in order to prioritize
justice for all residents of our community.
Thank you,
Jon Katz
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Anastasia Foster <arfoster888@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Cash Bail Item 4e
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica should not join the Whittier lawsuit.
The new bail system has already been in place for months prior to October 1st. People arrested go through a process
before it's determined if they can be temporarily released based on their criminal history and many other factors. A
court determined that cash bail is unconstitutional for good reason. Cash bail has nothing to do with justice, other than
to unduly harm those who cannot afford bail while they await trial. Please do not vote to join this lawsuit.
‐‐
Anastasia Foster
Chair, Santa Monica Rent Control Board
Organizer, Schiff for Senate Campaign
Board of Directors, Meals on Wheels West
CADEM Credentials Committee Co‐Chair & Delegate ‐ AD51
CEPS Steering Committee
Franklin PTA Executive Committee
Facebook
Instagram
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Michelle Parris <mparris@Vera.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 4.E (Considering Whether to Initiate Litigation – City of Whittier, et al. v. Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, et al
Attachments:Vera Written Public Comment for Oct 10 2021 Santa Monica CC Mtg - Agenda Item 4E.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
My name is Michelle Parris. I live in Los Angeles and am the director of Vera California, a local iniƟaƟve of the Vera
InsƟtute of JusƟce, which advances policies and pracƟces that will make California a model for ending mass
incarceraƟon, promoƟng community safety, and advancing racial jusƟce.
Please see the aƩachment for my public comment on today’s council meeƟng agenda item 4E. If you have any trouble
accessing the document, please let me know and I can resend it. Just in case, I have also pasted the content below my
signature block.
Warmly,
Michelle
Michelle Parris
Director, Vera California
Vera Institute of Justice 634 South Spring Street, #300A Los Angeles, CA 90014 c 917-783-6850
mparris@vera.org
(pronouns: she/her)
Subscribe here to receive periodic updates about our work in California and opportuniƟes to become involved.
October 10, 2023
Santa Monica City Council:
Via email: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Agenda Item 4.E (Considering Whether to Initiate Litigation – City of Whittier, et al. v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, et al.)
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Michelle Parris. I live in Los Angeles and am the director of Vera California, a local initiative of the
Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) advancing policies and practices that will make California a model for ending
mass incarceration, promoting community safety, and advancing racial justice. Vera has worked on pretrial
policy across the country—from Michigan to Kentucky to New Jersey—for more than 60 years.
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
2
We encourage the Council not to join litigation that seeks to thwart implementation of the Superior Court’s
new bail policy, the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP). The policy is a step forward towards a more
fair, just, and safe pretrial system.
The PARP policy rightfully shifts away from money bail and recommends administrative
release for people charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies.
The court’s policy does not represent a radical change in the pretrial system and instead builds off years of
similar bail policies and assessment of those policies. For the past three years, the county has had a bail
schedule (often called the “emergency bail schedule” or EBS) on and off where many people charged with low-
level offenses were released through administrative means, like citations, instead of having traditional cash bail
imposed. Like the emergency bail schedule, the PARP policy recommends administrative release for low-level
offenses. The policies of having pre-arraignment magistrate reviews and a money bail system for people
detained until arraignment continue.
Extensive research demonstrates that reforms like the PARP policy are good for public safety.
Vera analyzed the Los Angeles Police Department’s own data from the EBS period and found that violent crime
and property crime in Los Angeles were lower or remained effectively unchanged under the EBS from the two-
year period before the policy. As in Los Angeles, studies from around the country repeatedly find that reforms
like the PARP policy are not linked to an increase in violent or nonviolent crime. The courts in Harris County,
Texas—home to Houston—issued a standing order in 2019 for most people charged with misdemeanors to be
released without money bond. An independent federal monitor tasked with analyzing the data found that far
more people are now being released pretrial and that these higher release rates did not translate to higher
rearrest rates—rearrest rates have stayed largely constant from before and after the policy change.
The Kentucky Supreme Court issued statewide orders similar to what is in the PARP, including release for
nonviolent and nonsexual lower level felonies, and found that the data showed releasing more people does not
compromise public safety. In 2017, the court mandated administrative pretrial release for most misdemeanors;
92 percent of those released were not rearrested. In 2020, after the policy expanded to include the
aforementioned felonies, rearrest remained low and 89 percent of people were not rearrested.
In New York, despite the fearmongering around bail reform, a rigorous academic study found that it reduced
overall re-arrest and felony re-arrest among people released under the new law, compared to a pre-reform
comparison group. Further, research shows no correlation between bail reform policies and an increase in
violent crime. These research findings counter false claims that the PARP policy is likely to increase crime.
The Council should not act on the critics’ fearmongering and misleading claims.
Critics of the PARP policy frequently cite the Yolo County District Attorney’s reports claiming their emergency
bail schedule led to a huge increase in crime. The Yolo County DA reports should not be credited because they
are significantly flawed. They are based on a small sample size—one study was of 100 people (compared to the
tens of thousands studied in Houston’s or Kentucky’s policies which are similar in scope to PARP’s)—and
without establishing the proper research protocols that would show a discrete policy change causing a specific
outcome (e.g., increased arrests). The robust research on similar policies with larger sample sizes—including
from Los Angeles itself—should inform the Council.
Ultimately, more pretrial detention will not benefit public safety, nor justice.
Research demonstrates that just 24 hours in jail increases the likelihood that someone will be arrested again
because of the destabilizing effect of detention and the resulting loss of jobs, housing, and community ties.
In addition to building safety, PARP serves justice. Only those who cannot pay experience the harms of pretrial
detention, from the horrors of jail to housing instability or homelessness. The PARP policy ensures that a
person’s wealth does not determine whether they are free or in jail.
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
3
By following the research on public safety and policies like PARP, we have an opportunity to spare many people
the harmful destabilization of pretrial incarceration and spare Angelenos the results of such destabilization.
Rather than join suit, Santa Monica City Council should encourage the court to monitor and share data analysis
on implementation at regular intervals.
Sincerely,
Michelle Parris
Initiative Director
Vera California
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
October 10, 2023
Santa Monica City Council:
Via email: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Agenda Item 4.E (Considering Whether to Initiate Litigation – City of Whittier, et al.
v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al.)
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Michelle Parris. I live in Los Angeles and am the director of Vera California,
a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) advancing policies and practices
that will make California a model for ending mass incarceration, promoting community
safety, and advancing racial justice. Vera has worked on pretrial policy across the
country—from Michigan to Kentucky to New Jersey—for more than 60 years.
We encourage the Council not to join litigation that seeks to thwart implementation of
the Superior Court’s new bail policy, the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP).
The policy is a step forward towards a more fair, just, and safe pretrial system.
The PARP policy rightfully shifts away from money bail and recommends
administrative release for people charged with misdemeanors and low-level
felonies.
The court’s policy does not represent a radical change in the pretrial system and instead
builds off years of similar bail policies and assessment of those policies. For the past
three years, the county has had a bail schedule (often called the “emergency bail
schedule” or EBS) on and off where many people charged with low-level offenses were
released through administrative means, like citations, instead of having traditional cash
bail imposed. Like the emergency bail schedule, the PARP policy recommends
administrative release for low-level offenses. The policies of having pre-arraignment
magistrate reviews and a money bail system for people detained until arraignment
continue.
Extensive research demonstrates that reforms like the PARP policy are
good for public safety.
Vera analyzed the Los Angeles Police Department’s own data from the EBS period and
found that violent crime and property crime in Los Angeles were lower or remained
effectively unchanged under the EBS from the two-year period before the policy. As in
Los Angeles, studies from around the country repeatedly find that reforms like the
PARP policy are not linked to an increase in violent or nonviolent crime. The courts in
Harris County, Texas—home to Houston—issued a standing order in 2019 for most
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
people charged with misdemeanors to be released without money bond. An independent
federal monitor tasked with analyzing the data found that far more people are now being
released pretrial and that these higher release rates did not translate to higher rearrest
rates—rearrest rates have stayed largely constant from before and after the policy
change.
The Kentucky Supreme Court issued statewide orders similar to what is in the PARP,
including release for nonviolent and nonsexual lower level felonies, and found that the
data showed releasing more people does not compromise public safety. In 2017, the
court mandated administrative pretrial release for most misdemeanors; 92 percent of
those released were not rearrested. In 2020, after the policy expanded to include the
aforementioned felonies, rearrest remained low and 89 percent of people were not
rearrested.
In New York, despite the fearmongering around bail reform, a rigorous academic study
found that it reduced overall re-arrest and felony re-arrest among people released under
the new law, compared to a pre-reform comparison group. Further, research shows no
correlation between bail reform policies and an increase in violent crime. These research
findings counter false claims that the PARP policy is likely to increase crime.
The Council should not act on the critics’ fearmongering and misleading
claims.
Critics of the PARP policy frequently cite the Yolo County District Attorney’s reports
claiming their emergency bail schedule led to a huge increase in crime. The Yolo County
DA reports should not be credited because they are significantly flawed. They are based
on a small sample size—one study was of 100 people (compared to the tens of thousands
studied in Houston’s or Kentucky’s policies which are similar in scope to PARP’s)—and
without establishing the proper research protocols that would show a discrete policy
change causing a specific outcome (e.g., increased arrests). The robust research on
similar policies with larger sample sizes—including from Los Angeles itself—should
inform the Council.
Ultimately, more pretrial detention will not benefit public safety, nor
justice.
Research demonstrates that just 24 hours in jail increases the likelihood that someone
will be arrested again because of the destabilizing effect of detention and the resulting
loss of jobs, housing, and community ties.
In addition to building safety, PARP serves justice. Only those who cannot pay
experience the harms of pretrial detention, from the horrors of jail to housing instability
or homelessness. The PARP policy ensures that a person’s wealth does not determine
whether they are free or in jail.
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
By following the research on public safety and policies like PARP, we have an
opportunity to spare many people the harmful destabilization of pretrial incarceration
and spare Angelenos the results of such destabilization. Rather than join suit, Santa
Monica City Council should encourage the court to monitor and share data analysis on
implementation at regular intervals.
Sincerely,
Michelle Parris
Initiative Director
Vera California
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ellis Raskin <ellis.raskin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; David White; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Comments for Oct. 10, 2023 City Council Meeting
Attachments:2023-10-10 Ltr re Agenda Item 16-F.pdf; 2023-10-10 Ltr re Agenda Item 16-C.pdf; 2023-10-10 Ltr re
Agenda Item 4-E.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Councilmembers:
Please find attached comment letters regarding agenda items 4‐E, 16‐C, and 16‐F.
Best,
Ellis Raskin
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
October 10, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
c/o City Clerk
1685 Main St., Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Conference with Legal Counsel – Considering Whether to Initiate Litigation – Gov. Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Whittier, et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al.;
LASC Case No. 23STCP03579 (requested by Councilmember Brock)
Dear Hon. Councilmembers,
I understand that you are considering taking action regarding the above-captioned case. I urge
you to not vote in favor of joining this lawsuit.
I have attached a report from the American Bar Association that discusses the importance of bail
reform. At the very least, I hope you will read just this short excerpt:
Cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice hiding in plain sight. It splits the criminal
legal system into two separate and unequal processes: one for those who have money and
one for those who do not. After courts set bail amounts, people who can afford that cost
return home to their families, jobs, and lives where they can prepare their defense and
ultimately recoup their payment after returning to court. People who cannot afford bail
are left behind bars for the duration of their case—often lasting months and even years.
During that time, people’s lives can fall apart; they can lose their jobs and homes, be
separated from their children, and endure the daily trauma that jail brings. These
pressures mount against them and ultimately impact case outcomes. Research shows that
people detained pretrial are more likely to plead guilty after succumbing to these
pressures, leading to higher conviction rates and harsher punishments than their
released counterparts.
Best,
Ellis Raskin
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <nzernitskaya@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; David
White; Jesse Zwick; doug.sloan@santamonica.gov
Subject:10/10/23 City Council Agenda Item 3D
EXTERNAL
Re: Santa Monica City Council Agenda 10/10/2023 Item 3D
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, City Councilmembers, Mr. Sloan, and Mr. White,
I once again urge the Council to stay the course and allow the case to be re-heard by the Court of Appeals for
a number of reasons including the need for the Court to apply the facts of the case to the provisions of the law
as well as the fact that staying the course is the most fiscally responsible choice given our current
circumstances.
Additionally, I urge Councilmember de la Torre to recuse himself from this item due to the actual or perceived
conflict of interest that he has in regards to this lawsuit and his relationships with the Plaintiffs.
For your convenience, I have included the content of my letter to the City Council on this issue from September
12, 2023 below:
Councilmember de la Torre has a Conflict of Interest and Must Recuse Himself from Item 3.D
As I previously stated when I provided verbal comments at the May 9th meeting, I once again urge
Councilmember de la Torre to recuse himself from participating in the legal conference discussions on this
topic. With respect to the June 2022 settlement of the conflict of interest case between the City and
Councilmember de la Torre, the settlement states that “the decision to recuse on account of any potential
conflict of interest shall be left to each councilmember,” but it is in the interest of protecting the City’s reputation
and maintaining the highest ethical standards for Councilmember de la Torre to recuse himself from this item
because of the following facts:
1. Prior to being elected to the Council, Councilmember de la Torre served as co-chair of one of the co-
plaintiffs, the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA), and he served as the representative of the PNA
in the CVRA case,
2. The other co-plaintiff is the Councilmember’s spouse.
3. After being elected to the Council in 2020, in June 2021, the Councilmember filed an amicus brief as
an individual in support of the plaintiffs.
Recusal from the case would not prohibit Councilmember de la Torre from voicing his opinion on his preferred
method of electing local representatives publicly, but would protect the City and the councilmember from any
appearance of impropriety or conflict. Outside of any potential financial conflicts of interest, there is also a
common law conflict of interest prohibition which extends to non-economic interests.
In prior legal cases on the topic of conflicts of interest, the California Attorney General has noted that a public
officer is bound to exercise their powers with disinterested skill, zeal and diligence for the benefit of the public.
Actual injury is not the principle the law proceeds on. Fidelity to the public interest is the purpose of conflict of
interest laws.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling and the City’s Next Steps on the CVRA Lawsuit
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
2
With regards to the choices that the Council faces in deciding the next steps for the case, it is in the best
interest of the City and its residents to allow the case to be re-heard at the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court’s opinion was highly nuanced in how a plaintiff would be required to prove vote dilution
under the CVRA and further asserted that a plaintiff must prove both racially polarized voting and vote dilution
in order to prove a violation of the CVRA.
The Supreme Court did not rule “on the ultimate question of whether the City’s at-large voting system is
consistent with the CVRA” or declare the plaintiffs the victors, but rather took the opportunity to clarify some of
the ambiguities of the law. The City did not lose (or win) the case and neither did the Plaintiffs.
It is up to the Santa Monica City Council to ensure that the “totality of the facts and circumstances” of the City’s
current at-large voting system are carefully examined by the Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court remanded
the case back to the same panel of appellate judges who issued their now-depublished opinion in favor of the
City in July 2020.
In defining how vote dilution must be proven, the Supreme Court also noted that protected class voters should
not be made “worse off” by a potential remedy:
“To replace at-large with district elections under a dilution theory, a successful plaintiff must show not
merely that the protected class would have a real electoral opportunity in one or more hypothetical
districts, but also that the incremental gain in the class’s ability to elect its candidate of choice in such
districts would not be offset by a loss of the class’s potential to elect its candidates of choice elsewhere
in the locality. (...) As both sides in this proceeding agree, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a net
gain in the protected class’s potential to elect candidates under an alternative system, it has not shown
the at-large method of election “impairs” the ability of the protected class to elect its preferred
candidates. ”
If Santa Monica were forced to switch to by-district elections, Latino voters would certainly be made worse off.
Further, If we wish to change the method(s) by which we elect our representatives, that decision should be
made through an open, public process and ratified by the voters, and not through an opaque settlement
decided in closed session behind closed doors. As we are a charter city, our form of government is for the
citizens alone to decide by voting at the ballot box.
The Fiscally Responsible Choice
At this stage of the legal process for this case, the most fiscally responsible decision would be to stay the
course and allow the case to be re-heard at the Court of Appeals. If the Council were to seek a potential
settlement at this time, there could be a potential financial liability of millions if not tens of millions of dollars at a
time when our City’s fiscal health is still recovering. Any additional legal costs from continuing the case would
be marginal compared to the costs that have already been incurred and if the Court of Appeals’ initial ruling is
any indication, the City may have a reasonable chance of potentially recovering at least some of the costs that
we have incurred.
It is important to note that Section 14030 of the CVRA is a one-way attorney fee provision, which means that
the prevailing plaintiff party is entitled to fees and costs, so long as the plaintiff is not the state or a political
subdivision. There is no fee provision for prevailing defendants. Prevailing defendants do not recover costs
unless the action was frivolous or the like. However, in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, the panel of three judges
unanimously awarded costs to the City.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to heed the intention of the California Supreme Court and give the Court
of Appeals the opportunity to re-evaluate the Santa Monica CVRA case.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
3
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
nzernitskaya@gmail.com
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Peter DiChellis <pdichellis@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:POA; Community Affairs; Editor@smdp.com; nomaboard@gmail.com; pna90404@gmail.com;
contact@opa-sm.org; wilmontinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Council Item 2 -- re: 4E: Zero Bail Litigation
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
Copies: Neighborhood OrganizaƟons, SMDP, SMPD, SMPOA,
The City Council needs to do whatever is necessary to deter ever‐rising crime in Santa Monica, too much of it the result
of rabid crime‐enablers in LA County government. Every new crime isn’t simply another staƟsƟc; it’s another vicƟm.
The County’s new zero bail, catch‐and‐release mandate is naive and dangerous, and its raƟonale, as presented to the
public, is chock full of falsehoods.
First, we already have painful experience with LA County cite‐and‐release dangers. A small sampling: a) The individual
arrested for a knife murder a few blocks south of the Pier had been arrested and released on a citaƟon just two weeks
before; b) The man who stabbed a City worker in the chest in Palisades Park had been released from jail on a citaƟon five
days prior to the stabbing; c) Another man, arrested for robbery and stabbings near the beach, had been cited and
released for baƩery (i.e., punching or hiƫng someone) two weeks earlier; d) An individual arrested for arson of an
inhabited building had been cited and released for a different crime a month earlier. Why expect different results now?
Second, the claim that “zero‐dollar bail is not available for serious or violent crimes” is blatantly false based on the
published bail schedule itself, which demands police release a variety of child sex offenders, those who shoot a firearm
on a public highway, possessors of illegal explosive devices, and those arrested for assaults/baƩeries on school grounds
On what planet are those not “serious or violent crimes?”
Also released forthwith are convicted felons and others who inƟmidate or threaten witnesses, those arrested for
commiƫng certain hate crimes, those who interfere with emergency first responders or impersonate a police officer,
loiterers who refuse to leave private property, burglars, and repeat offenders for theŌ and public transit crimes.
Those mandated releases for repeat offenders also expose the County’s false spin that “the new rules do not allow
repeat offenders back on the streets as individuals rearrested are not eligible for release a second Ɵme.” In fact, the
published bail schedule is loaded with mandated releases for second and/or “subsequent” offenses.
Moreover, the penalty for refusing to appear in court aŌer being cited and released for any of these crimes is simply
another citaƟon and immediate release.
Police, Sheriffs, and experienced prosecutors roundly denounce this crime‐friendly County scheme for good reason. And
while proponents of the zero bail policy point to a single study showing its effecƟveness, they ignore other data, notably
a Northern California study, demonstraƟng its dangers.
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)
2
Santa Monica may have legiƟmate financial reasons for avoiding yet more liƟgaƟon involvement, but the Council must at
least denounce this preposterous County policy via an open‐session resoluƟon vote. Show the world which Council
members stand with Santa Monica and which ones stand with criminals.
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.E. October 10, 2023
4.E.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6083 : 4.E. Closed Session - Whittier)