In an account of a recent city council meeting, we reported: “The Chronicle has learned that the justification for that [July 19] closed session was not based on discussion of a legislative strategy for handling marijuana dispensaries, but rather on settlement strategies for pending litigation on an entirely separate matter.”
While The Chronicle reported the basis for that closed session in good faith, based on a credible source inside city hall, that source subsequently has indicated uncertainty about the veracity of the claim. The city attorney’s contention is that the purpose for the closed session was to discuss specific legal advice as contained in written documents about medical marijuana. The exact nature of the actual discussion is currently a matter of factual dispute. We note the controversy here and have added a notation to the original article.