Resident Presses Los Altos Hills Council for Transparency Before Closed Session

The Los Altos Hills City Council's Oct. 15, 2026, special meeting lasted only minutes in public, but one resident used them to challenge how the town is handling a legal dispute behind closed doors. After the acting city attorney advised against discussing the matter in open session, the council adjourned into closed session without taking any public action.

---

• Resident Mr. O'Connell criticizes repeated closed-session special meetings tied to a claims letter
• Acting city attorney advises council not to discuss the matter publicly
• No motions or votes taken in open session; outcome of closed session not yet public

---

One Resident, One Question: What Is the Town Doing?

The basics: The Brown Act is California's open-meetings law, and it allows closed sessions only in narrow circumstances. CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act, the state's main environmental review law.

Why it matters: The exchange highlights a familiar tension in local government. Legal confidentiality protects the town's position in a dispute, while residents want to know what is happening and what it costs.

Where things stand: Mayor Rajiv Bhateja opened public comment and limited it to the subject of the special meeting. Only one resident spoke. Mr. O'Connell said this was the second special meeting in about a month on the topic and questioned the secrecy surrounding it.

O'Connell connected the closed session to a letter received Dec. 16, 2025. He said the letter alleged violations of the Brown Act and CEQA, along with misuse of public resources. He described the claims as unworthy of the council's continued attention.

"Please don't continue this continued process of closed session special meetings on a topic as frivolous as what was put in this letter," said O'Connell, a public commenter.

He also pointed to a past legal fight as a warning about cost. "Mike Grady's $40,000 public records access lawsuit resulted in the town incurring $100,000 to deal with it," O'Connell said.

O'Connell asked the council not to take any action that would prevent a particular resource from being used. He also asked for a proper report to residents after the closed session.

The other side: The Acting City Attorney told the council that because the item was on the closed-session agenda, it should stay out of open discussion. The attorney noted that the council could still make decisions on it in closed session.

"I would advise that we not discuss it out in the open," said the Acting City Attorney.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No council member responded publicly to O'Connell, and no action was taken in open session. Residents focused on transparency did not get a substantive public answer. Taxpayers have a stake in the outcome, given O'Connell's warning about legal costs. The council, meanwhile, keeps its legal strategy confidential. The town did not publicly name the subject of the closed session.

What's next: Watch for any report-out from the council after the closed session. That will be the first public signal of what the council decided, if anything, and whether it responds to O'Connell's request.

---

Minor Items

• Roll call: Councilmember Stanley Q. Mok, Councilmember George K. Tyson, Vice Mayor Linda G. Swan and Mayor Bhateja responded, confirming a quorum. Councilmember Tankha's attendance could not be confirmed.
• Disbursement report: Staff said the monthly disbursement report, which is required by law, missed the regular meeting packet. Staff provided it to the council at this special meeting, which had 24-hour notice.

---

Looking Ahead

The council adjourned into closed session, and its outcome was not disclosed in the open portion of the meeting. Residents following the dispute should watch future agendas and any public report-out for disclosure of actions or costs.