Late Friday afternoon last week, the City of Healdsburg announced the settlement of two lawsuits 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: sitting city representatives are not supposed to advocate in such elections.
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.”
