Three residents of Inglewood have filed a lawsuit against the City of Inglewood, Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, and Joseph T. Rouzan, Jr. seeking the correction of violations of the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. Rouzan is being sued in his role as City Administrator for Inglewood as well as Executive Director of the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency. Although separate in functions, the Inglewood City Council and the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency are composed of the same five individuals as members; Roosevelt F. Dom; Jose Fernandez, Judy Dunlap, Lawrence A. Kirkley, and Curren Price. Those are all elected officials; Joseph T. Rouzan, Jr. was hired by a majority of the Inglewood City Council.

The suit alleges that in violation of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), certain checks payable to Roosevelt F. Dorn along with supporting documentation were properly requested by individuals but the agencies and respondent Rouzan have failed to produce them as required by existing law. Further, the Petition for Writ of Mandate alleges that the Council and Redevelopment Agency have prevented members of the public from videotaping open meetings in violation of the Brown Act, the law which provided specific sections of the Government Code dealing with open public meetings. As a third matter, the suit relates two instances where public testimony was barred at public meetings dealing with proposed changes to the Inglewood Merged Redevelopment Project. Lastly, there is the allegation that the Redevelopment Agency/City Council met in closed session to discuss the contract for the retention of outside counsel in connection with activities of the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, again in violation of the Government Code.

Prior to the filing of the Petition for Writ of Mandate, the Inglewood City Council and Inglewood Redevelopment Agency were afforded a clear opportunity to cure and correct the listed violations through letter communications. The refusal to cure and correct the violations or respond in a meaningful manner lead to the filing of the suit. This parallels earlier litigation along the same lines where the City and Redevelopment Agency refused to cure and correct prior violations until after litigation was filed and substantial litigation expense was incurred. The eventual remedial actions by those Inglewood agencies as the result of the prior litigation essentially confirmed that the violations did occur.

This lawsuit, as with the immediate prior similar litigation, does not seek personal compensation for the resident plaintiffs. It merely asks that the Inglewood City Council and the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency comply with existing law as regards the listed violations and, hopefully, will not continue with an apparent pattern of disregard for laws that seek to promote open government.