Prior to the vote, Vice Mayor Robert Garcia and Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal -- who were both present at the Council meeting -- exited the Council Chamber...meaning they will be recorded as "absent" on the publicly recorded vote on the doffing/donning settlement.

Councilwoman Lowenthal was visible on Council video a few minutes before the item was called but wasn't visible on Council video when the item was called.

Vice Mayor Garcia was presiding when the item was called, introduced Councilman Johnson for a City Attorney colloquy that followed (transcribed below) and Garcia swiftly exited the Council Chamber (arrow in screen grab, right), leaving Councilman Patrick O'Donnell to preside.

O'Donnell's campaign website lists Garcia and exiting Mayor Foster among O'Donnell's "supporters." As seen LIVE (now available on-demand) on LBREPORT.com, Councilwoman Lowenthal gave an effusive introduction to Garcia at Garcia's April 8 election night celebration.

Councilwoman Lowenthal returned less than sixty seconds after the Council voted on the donning/doffing item; she went on to vote "yes" on the next item (a resolution supporting "equitable and timely resolution of the contract dispute" between Community Hospital and its Registered Nurses.) (Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske was absent for the entire meeting.)

Vice Mayor Garcia returned roughly ten minutes after exiting...and will be recorded as absent on both the donning/doffing settlement and the Community Hospital nurses' votes.

Vice Mayor Garcia is in a June runoff against commercial real estate developer Damon Dunn for Mayor. Councilwoman Lowenthal is on the June ballot facing (among others) Councilman Patrick O'Donnell for Assembly. Lowenthal has endorsed Garcia for Mayor.

LBREPORT.com presumes that the donning/doffing settlement was discussed and likely voted on in a closed Council session; the collective City Council as a policy setting body is the City Attorney's client. Since the litigation has now been concluded, under the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, LBREPORT.com will this morning (April 17) ask the City Attorney's office to release the closed session Council vote tally -- including "yeas" and "nays" as voted by Councilmembers -- on the donning/doffing matter. LBREPORT.com will publish that vote tally here when we learn it [click reload/refresh on this page for updated information.]

The motion to approve in the April 15 public Council meeting was made by Councilman Johnson and came after he engaged City Attorney Charles Parkin in a brief Council colloquy (text below.) Johnson and Parkin are the candidates in June runoff for a four year term as City Attorney.) Their colloquy on the "donning/doffing" settlement is below:

Councilman Johnson: ...Mr. Parkin, my understanding is some police officers sued the city; some did not sue the city; and some continued their sue did not settle, and my understanding is this settlement basically provides that all those people be treated equally and get the same number of vacation hours. Is that generally accurate?

City Attorney Parkin: That is correct. There was a class action in which these nine individuals opted-out of the class action that settled back in 2010, and that the result of this settlement tonight if approved would give them the exact same benefits that were the result of the class action.

Councilman Johnson: Right, but I think it's also important to note that even those who were not part of the class action, they also received the same amount of hours. Isn't that correct?

City Attorney Parkin: Yes, that is correct, for all officers that received that with the exception of command staff, correct.

Councilman Johnson: Alright, with that I'll make the motion to approve.

Regarding the Council Chamber absences of Vice Mayor Garcia and Councilwoman Lowenthal, LB's Municipal Code requires Councilmembers who are present to vote "yes" or "no" (abstention not allowed unless required for narrowly specified legal reasons, such as conflicts of interest.)

In the April 2014 election cycle, the LB Police Officers Ass'n PAC made no endorsement in the Mayor's race. It has taken no position at this point in either the June Mayoral runoff or the June Assembly race. The Long Beach Police Officers Association wasn't a legal party in the donning/doffing lawsuits; although hundreds of its members as individual police officers were parties to the lawsuits.

Below is the text of the publicly agendized memo accompanying an April 15, 2014 City Council voted settlement.

[City Attorney Parkin agendizing text]

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation to authorize City Attorney to pay sum of $ 43,405.56 in full settlement of lawsuits entitled Battle et al. v City of Long Beach, Case No. CV12-5055-JEM and authorize City Attorney to increase contract amount with City's outside counsel by $101,983.16.

DISCUSSION

In these consolidated cases, nine (9) separate police officers, who opted-out of a prior class action settlement, sue the City for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs claim that they are owed overtime for various activities, including putting on their uniforms at the beginning of their shifts, and taking off their uniforms at the end of the shift.

You will recall that approximately 790 police officers previously sued the City making similar allegations. That class action was resolved by providing the police officers twenty-five (25) hours of vacation time, or roughly the cash equivalent for police officers who retired from the police force between the time of the lawsuit and the time of the settlement.

As to the nine (9) officers who opted out, they eventually agreed to accept the same settlement as the original settling group. The settlement amount represents attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement and the winding up of outside counsel costs were discussed with the Economic Development and Finance Committee, which approved the settlement on April 1, 2014.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Very truly yours,

Charles Parkin

Nearly all of the officers agreed to settle their "doffing and donning" cases in December 2010, with City Council approval under then-City Attorney Bob Shannon. That settlement included officers receiving roughly 47 vacation hours over four years, and payment of the officers' attorneys fees.

The officers filed suit in December 2006 seeking reimbursement for (among other things) time spent putting on and taking off their uniforms plus protective equipment and performing other police tasks. The massive lawsuit, with hundreds of officers joining as plaintiffs, had exposed the City to tens of millions of dollars in back pay costs and damages, plus payment of the officers' attorney fees (if they prevailed) and payment of outside legal counsel to defend the city in the process.

A major break in the litigation came with a March 2010 9th circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion (Bamonte v. City of Mesa (Arizona)) that donning and doffing allegations could only be maintained if a police department has a rule or regulation requiring officers to get dressed at work. Since LBPD didn't have such a rule, the Appeals Court ruling undercut the officers' doffing and donning allegations (although some officer claims remained for settlement.)