VENTURA RESIDENT ACCUSES CITY COUNCIL OF CLOSED DOOR CHARTER BYPASS

Ventura City Hall is officially on notice after a local whistleblower blasted the City Council’s use of an Ad Hoc committee to potentially rewrite the rules of local governance.

During a tense open forum, the resident claimed the council is attempting to grant the Mayor appointment powers that do not exist in the current City Charter.

These specific powers allegedly involve the selection of Port and Housing Commissioners.

The whistleblower detailed a timeline beginning in May 2025, when a policy regarding Citizen Advisory Groups failed to gain traction during a public session.

According to the resident, the council opted instead for a private Committee on Committees ad hoc meeting.

The critic warned that by excluding the public from these subcommittees, the council is effectively one vote away from stripping citizens of their oversight.

You turned citizens away from the door, but you are making decisions that affect us all, the resident stated.

Ventura is a Charter City, which means it is governed by its own local constitution.

According to the Ventura City Charter, the city operates under a Council Manager form of government.

Traditionally, the Mayor is a member of the council with no independent executive authority to appoint commissioners without a majority vote of the full council.

The resident's concern stems from the legal principle that an Ad Hoc committee cannot create powers that supersede the Charter.

Under California’s Brown Act, standing committees that have a permanent meeting schedule must be open to the public. However, temporary ad hoc committees composed of less than a quorum of the council are often exempt from public notice requirements.

This closed door legality is exactly what the resident challenged during the forum.

Currently, the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura operates as a separate legal entity.

The resident warned that moving the commissioner selection process to a small subcommittee would remove the broader public vetting process.

In a seven member council, four votes are required for a majority.

The resident pointed out that with three members already participating in the private sessions, the group only needs to convince one more colleague to push through a policy change.