RA1976/03/3076 -33
Community Development Commission Minutes - March 30, 1976, 1 :00 P.M.
Community Development Commission, Continued:
ratify some or all of its past actions since May of 1975.
It was further concluded that there is nothing the Community
Development Commission can do by its own action to preclude a mem-
ber from voting, therefore the intervention of an outside agency,
specifically a Court, will be required. Of the two possible
remedies available for future actions, one has already been
instituted, that being the Grand Jury proceeding under Section
3060 et seq. of the Government Code. The other suggested possible
alternative is the seeking of an injunction to preclude a member
from voting on redevelopment matters, due to a conflict of
interest, in this case due to the acquisition of property in the
redevelopment project area in violation of Section 33130 of the
Health and Safety Code.
In response to question by Commissioner Seymour, Commissioner
Sneegas advised that the position he had taken at the March 23,
1976 meeting had not changed; that if some determination is made
that he has been in violation of the law, he would then take action
to remedy the situation; however, he felt it was not proper to
request that he defend himself against possibilities.
In answer to question by Commissioner Seymour pertaining to
page 2, paragraph 4 of the City Attorney's report, Mr. Watts
advised that in order to prevent the exercise of a public office,
in a lawful manner, by the person in possession, it would have to
be shown that such exercise of public office was being conducted
in an unlawful manner. Under the existing fact situation being
discussed, the way to accomplish that would be to establish that,
in fact, there was a violation of Section 33130 of the Health and
Safety Code, and none of the exceptions therein apply to the partic-
ular member. Other issues also would need to be resolved before
an injunction could be issued. An injunction is a type of relief
granted to resolve a controversy between parties. The Courts will
not grant injunctive relief where there is an adequate remedy at
law.
Commissioner Seymour indicated it had been his understanding
that the purpose of granting an injunction is to temporarily stop
an activity in order to preclude the potentiality of people being
injured or damaged until the matter can be resolved. It seemed
that if there was a possibility that the redevelo ° - ment effort could
be damaged, then equity dictates that the risk should be stopped
until a determination is made.
Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter pointed out that if
a preliminary injunction were granted, it would establish the
status quo prior to a hearing on the merits. The problem is that
in seeking such relief, it must be demonstrated that damage will
^— occur if the injunction is not granted.
Commissioner Seymour questioned whether, if there were an issue
before the Agency and the vote was three to two, with Commissioner
Sneegas one of the three voting in favor, that would be a situation
where the action could be determined invalid, and an injunction
would be justified.
Mr. Watts answered in the affirmative.
76 -34
Community Development Commission Minutes - March 30, 1976 P
Community Development Commission, Continued:
It was moved by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner
Kaywood, that the City Attorney be directed to obtain an injunction
which would prohibit Commissioner Sneegas from voting on redevel-
opment matters, only until such time as the matter is resolved
through the judicial system. Commissioner Sneegas abstained
from voting. MOTION CARRIED,
There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency or the Anaheim Housing Authority, Chairman Thom entertained
a motion to adjourn the Community Development Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaywood moved to adjourn. Commissioner
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
ADJOURNED: 1 :18 P.M.
ALONA M. HOUGARD SECRETARY, ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SIGNED:, L24 '& w� _ DEPUTY