Late Friday afternoon last week, the City of Healdsburg announced the settlement of legal action brought by Jon Eisenberg, a retired attorney living in Healdsburg, against the City for violations of the Brown Act. At issue was a “pattern of misbehavior that is deeply embedded in the culture of Healdsburg’s city government,” in the terms of Eisenberg’s January 2025 complaint.
“While the parties continue to disagree about allegations raised in the lawsuits, the City acknowledges Mr. Eisenberg raised important and valid concerns,” read the City’s statement. It further states that both parties “share an interest in government transparency and have agreed to several measures designed to improve public trust.”
Eisenberg’s complaint cited the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act in asserting that the city had engaged in “tainted decision-making on Healdsburg’s two most consequential issues in recent years,” those being the Measure O (rezoning) initiative and the dividing up of Healdsburg into five districts, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
Some public controversy surrounded both of those issues before Eisenberg brought his complaint earlier this year. Eisenberg himself, an opponent of Measure O, wrote an opinion piece in The Healdsburg Tribune (Sept. 25, 2024) asserting that misleading maps could create a much more densely populated downtown area than measure proponents claimed.
Proponents included former mayor Sean McCaffery and, notably, Councilmember Chris Herrod who acted as a sort of unofficial council voice on the pro-O campaign. Herrod’s overt support of the initiative raised eyebrows over his failure to clearly define his role as a councilmember as separate from a measure supporter: although city representatives are legally permitted to advocate in such elections, it is difficult to separate the two roles fully, in public perception if not in fact.
In the details, however, Eisenberg’s complaint cites Brown Act violations by all five members of the council to varying degrees, as well as current Planning Commissioner Jonathan Pearlman.
The division of Healdsburg into districts also drew Eisenberg’s attention, especially following the Dec. 16, 2024, City Council meeting where it was decided to keep the then-current five council seats, rotating mayor structure of governance without duly considering other structures.
Public interest in these two topics waxed and waned during 2024, but prior to last week’s resolution of Eisenberg’s longstanding action several closed sessions of the City Council have been devoted to discussing the litigation, the most recent on Aug. 18. Following that closed session Mayor Evelyn Mitchel reported that “No action has been taken.”
The settlement announced four days later includes the payment of $69,432 in attorney fees to Eisenberg’s attorneys.
On the city’s part, the City Council listed “commitments” that included “enhanced training” for council members, staff and city commissioners “on the Brown Act, use of social media, and public records.” New policies “designed to provide greater clarity and specificity on City Council agendas” were promised, this likely due to actions taken in meetings that were not anticipated by the agenda, and misleading closed session agenda.
Also at stake was a backlog of approved minutes by the council, which had lapsed by over a year when Eisenberg’s action was filed. Since that time multiple city agendas have been published and approved, and the “backlog” is only five months at present as minutes from the meetings of Feb. 3 and Feb. 18, 2025, were approved in the most recent council meeting on Aug. 18.
Eisenberg provided a statement following the city’s announced settlement. “Yes, I am very satisfied with the result,” it read. “It achieves the enhanced governmental transparency I’ve been seeking…
“But the litigation shouldn’t have been necessary. The settlement agreement closely resembles the settlement proposal I made to the City Council at the end of 2024—before I commenced the litigation—which the Council flatly rejected. Ultimately, the Council will have needlessly spent $150,000 on attorney’s fees—the Council’s and mine—only to yield to my modest and reasonable proposals.”
What does Healdsburg do when you’re the worst offender in two lawsuits that cost the city over $160,000? The likely answer is, Promote You to Mayor. Chris Herrod was the most vocal supporter of Measure O. Chris Herrod’s emails were collected and reviewed, and it was found that he arranged several meetings with other council members to drum up support for Measure O. He also met with Planning Commissioner candidate Johnathan Pearlman and only supported him after he changed his opinion to back Measure O. Mr. Herrod promoted Measure O at an event at the Acorn Cafe paid for with city funds. He used his City Council newsletter to promote Measure O and attack anyone who opposed it. He posted videos of himself spreading Measure O propaganda which directly contradicted statements he made on video at city council meetings. All these actions are prohibited by the Brown Act.
After the council had all but agreed on a district map, Chris Herrod introduced an alternate map which gave him a clear path to run in 2026 where he would not have to face off against the harder working and more competent Ron Edwards. This use of an incumbent’s residence to determine district lines is prohibited by districting regulations.
Instead of being sanctioned, Chris Herrod will likely be our next mayor. Healdsburg uses a rotation system, and the Vice-Mayor becomes the next mayor after a formality vote by the city council. Maybe it’s time to use merit as a determining factor. Ron Edwards is much more in touch with the majority of Healdsburg residents than Chris Herrod. He was the council member least mentioned in the Brown Act lawsuit as opposed to Chris Herrod being named 69 times. As Chris Herrod often states, “No one is above the law.” That’s why I support Ron Edwards as our next mayor. I hope the city council does also.
What good Healdsburg citizens Jon Eisenberg, Dan Pizza. and Tribune star Chris Kallen have been. Thank you!
These three men recently shared their time, energy, research skills, and their words with residents, regarding recent bad acts by our elected (by us unfortunately) city council. Yes. Just read the Tribune!
Misdeeds include a waste of time and city. funds on improper promoting the unpopular and defeated Measure O, costly legal violations of the Brown Act ($150,000), and suspect changes in voter redistricting.
Thank you fellow citizens. Shame on the council.
I agree with Dan. Ron Edwards for Mayor!
I am not surprised with anything Dan writes so I will not comment on his rants.
I am surprised Warren chimed in the way he did? The $150k, how much of it was for pulling public records by Eisenberg? Eisenberg accused Council members of Brown act violations and initially wanted them to admit wrongdoing. In the end Eisenberg dropped the lawsuit and went to arbitration to recover what he spent on attorney fees. There was no evidence of Wrongdoing something Kellen fails to mention in his article.
What came out was the City was behind on posting meeting minutes, maybe if Eisenberg was not wasting the city’s resources by demanding public records they would have been done?
I ask you Warren, if you were accused of something you were not guilty of, would you not fight it?
Chris Harrod will be a good Mayor for Healdsburg
The pulling of public record was basically getting emails off the city’s email retention system so there was minimal cost. The main expense were the city attorneys who once again failed to provide the appropriate legal guidance. I saw what was in the emails as well as what Chris Herrod did in his campaign for Measure O. As I mentioned in my comment, there were plenty of violations. The most disturbing part of this lawsuit is Chris Herrod’s reaction to my post announcing the settlement. He actually said he had a good laugh reading it and he was delighted to be the focus of my post. Chris Herrod was the main reason these suits were filled, but he treats a $163,000 settlement like it was some sort of joke. I would love to hear any reasons you might believe he’d be a good mayor. I find his behavior disgusting.
Dan, please reread my first line your rants are not worth commenting on
Tom, I answered your comment with facts about the cost of the lawsuit and actual wrongdoing found in the emails and by observance of Herrod’s public actions. Much like Chris Herrod’s actions, your comments are indefensible. And just like Chris, instead of answering questions, you tend to insult and degrade people. You two appear to be on the same page. No wonder you think he’d be a good mayor.
Healdsburg City Council loves nothing more than bleeding our money. Anyone sitting as an elected official in any capacity in government without knowledge of or adherence to the Brown Act is a nothing more than a poseur who ascended office via popularity contest (not smarts, not experience). Supposedly, there’s some attorney (not sure if they ever actually practiced law, but I’m guessing they passed the CA bar exam) that currently sits on council, so lack of education can’t be fully blamed. Herrod turned this voter, and all of my family, friends and acquaintances off a LONG time ago; he has been found to be inept, and grossly condescending when his ineptitude is pointed out to him. The next step for Council is to return (from their own pockets) OUR money they bled out in a thinly veiled attempt to market and win Measure O on behalf of for-profit developers. What is it – close to $100K? And why spend so much money on attorney fees, etc., when they should have been PUBLISHING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES all along? Super weird, kids.