City Council- Special
Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2026, 6:15 PM
I. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Lauren Kleiman, Mayor Pro Tern Noah Blom, Councilmember Michelle Barto, Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Sara J. Weber, Councilmember Erik Weigand
The Special City Council Meeting of September 18, 2026 was called to order at 6:16 PM by Mayor Kleiman. City Clerk Lena Shumway confirmed all Council members present.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION
Prior to adjourning to Closed Session, the following members of the public addressed the Council:
Walter Stahr urged the Council to ask legal counsel for an honest estimate of the likelihood of success in the City's pending appeal to the State Supreme Court, which he characterized as having less than a one -in -one -hundred chance of success. He also questioned the cost of outside counsel's work on the appeal, estimating approximately 100 billable hours at discounted rates totaling roughly $30,000, and asked the Council to inquire whether any understanding existed between the City and Rutan & Tucker regarding discounted rates in exchange for future work.
Susan Skinner asserted that the City's challenge to the publication of the initiative notice in the OC Reporter constituted obstruction of the democratic process, citing court findings characterizing the City's actions as "obstructionism and an abuse of power." She announced her intent to file a California Bar complaint against City Attorney Aaron C. Harp and stated that an evidence preservation letter had been or would be served on the City.
Jim Mosher reminded the Council that, pursuant to City Charter Section 602, the City Council retains control over all legal affairs, and that under the Brown Act, any direction given in closed session to pursue or refrain from judicial relief must be publicly reported with a record of how each member voted. He noted that the only publicly reported vote on the litigation had been the unanimous vote at the August 18th special meeting.
V. CLOSED SESSION
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1): 2 matters.
A. City of Newport Beach v. Newport Beach Stewardship Association & Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. Lena Shumway et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2026-01559183
B. City of Newport Beach et al. v. Robert Page et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2026-01580961
City Attorney Harp announced the closed session items. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 6:17 PM and reconvened in open session thereafter.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Harp reported that there was no closed session report.
III. CURRENT BUSINESS
2. Proposed Ballot Questions for Three Citizen -Sponsored Charter Amendment Initiatives
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Determine that this action is being taken to comply with the court's orders and does not: (1) determine that the proponents complied with the Elections Code posting and publication requirements; (2) determine that any initiative petition contains sufficient valid signatures; (3) call an election or place any measure on a ballot; (4) request consolidation of an election; or (5) waive the City's positions concerning timing, procedure, or authority as set forth in its motion for reconsideration; and c) Approve the following proposed ballot questions, which will be presented to the City Council for the election -related actions at a regular City Council meeting if the measures qualify for the ballot: (1) Public Meetings, Records, Oversight, and Enforcement Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to establish new Charter requirements governing public meetings, public records, government oversight, and enforcement, be adopted?"; (2) Lifetime City Council Term Limit Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to impose a lifetime two -term limit on City Council service, for a maximum of eight years of service on the City Council, regardless of any break in service, be adopted?"; and (3) District -Only Voting Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to require that City Council members be elected by voters residing within the district the Council member represents, instead of by all City of Newport Beach voters, be adopted?"
Jim Mosher expressed concern that the Council appeared to have no need to discuss the staff report, raising the suspicion that the public item may have been discussed during closed session, which would have been improper. He noted that the staff report recommended continued compliance with the court order, acknowledged that most logistical hurdles —including ballot printing and military/overseas voter coordination — appeared to have been resolved, and suggested the Council could proactively seek a court order directing the Registrar of Voters to provide voter signatures in advance of November to resolve the remaining verification obstacle.
Mike Smith noted that the Brown Act requires the Council to publicly report specific formal actions taken in closed session, and that a "no report" response effectively signals no action was taken. He urged the Council to share more information with the public in order to rebuild trust.
Council Discussion:
Councilmember Weigand stated that while the imminent federal deadline requiring the mailing of military and overseas ballots on September 19th necessitated action, he was deeply concerned about the overall election process. He noted that the 400 military and overseas ballots to be sent the following day would contain only a yes/no ballot question without accompanying pro and con arguments, and that the Orange County Registrar of Voters had declined to recommend or facilitate further assistance to the City. He further stated that the Secretary of State had verbally characterized the election as illegal and that the absence of a voter signature data file made ballot verification impossible. Councilmember Weigand argued that proceeding would create mass confusion potentially affecting the concurrent statewide general election and moved to direct the City Clerk not to mail the ballots the following day.
Mayor Pro Tem Blom seconded the motion. He reflected that the City had made every good faith effort to comply with the court's orders, but characterized the situation as one presenting practical and legal impossibilities, particularly the inability to verify ballots and the absence of in -person voting. He expressed that he found it difficult to follow a court order that he believed defied California law and was in tension with his oath of office to uphold the California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and the Newport Beach City Charter.
Councilmember Grant stated that while she was fully aware of the legitimate hurdles identified by colleagues, the Council had voted by majority to comply with the writ and conduct an election on November 3rd. She emphasized that the appropriate course was to continue making good faith efforts to comply, and that circumstances had not yet reached a point where it was firmly established that a lawful election could not be conducted.
Councilmember Weber affirmed her belief in the right to vote but expressed concern about conducting the election in a manner that lacked the time, information, and process that voters deserve. She stated that she could not ignore her oath of office to uphold the law and the City Charter, and questioned the rationale for accelerating a process that risked voter confusion and disenfranchisement.
Mayor Pro Tem Blom added that the Registrar of Voters had confirmed it could not provide the voter file, and asked the public to consider whether the election being offered —under current conditions —was one that met acceptable standards of fairness and integrity.
A motion to direct the City Clerk not to mail the military and overseas ballots on September 19, 2026 was made by Councilmember Weigand and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Blom.
The motion failed 3-4, with Councilmember Grant, Mayor Kleiman, Councilmember Stapleton, and Councilmember Barto opposed.
The item was received and filed.
IV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
City Attorney Harp clarified that under Council Policy A-1, a motion for reconsideration of actions taken at either the September 11th or September 18th special meetings
could properly be brought at the next regular Tuesday Council meeting. No motion for reconsideration was made at this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.