The Napa County Board of Supervisors plotted behind closed doors to formulate the outcome of an upcoming Lake Luciana vote, according to one member of the board. Supervisor Bill Dodd said the board has met in closed session multiple times to devise a strategy that will allow the board to kill the Lake Luciana championship golf course proposed for Pope Valley.

“We’ve met in closed session no less than four times. And during those discussions, with the help of outside counsel and county counsel concocted this plan, which at the very least is fundamentally dishonest to the public,” Dodd said in an interview.

Lawyers for the county said the purpose of the closed-session meetings was to discuss a re-hearing of the project in light of the two lawsuits filed by Lake Luciana developers against the county.

Lake Luciana developers William Criswell and Robert Radovan are suing the county in state and federal court over the board’s June decision to reject the project.

In the lawsuits, lawyers for the developers allege, among other things, that supervisors Diane Dillon and Brad Wagenknecht were biased against Lake Luciana because of their personal connections to project opponents. Dillon and Wagenknecht, along with Supervisor Keith Caldwell, formed the majority in the 3-2 vote. Lawyers also allege that Dillon, Wagenknecht and Caldwell met one-on-one in a series of meetings to discuss the project outside of the public eye. If true, this could constitute a violation of the Brown Act, which is meant to regulate open meeting laws.

Dillon and Wagenknecht deny accusations of bias and maintain that they voted against Lake Luciana because the proposal is not consistent with the county’s General Plan. All five of the supervisors deny the Brown Act violation charges.

Embarrassed for the board

In a surprise move Tuesday, Wagenknecht announced that he will recuse himself from all further Lake Luciana hearings, and the board voted 3-1 to rescind its June rejection of the project. The board, minus Wagenknecht, will re-hear Lake Luciana on Dec. 1.

The re-hearing is meant to insulate the county from allegations of bias as well as Brown Act violation charges.

Dodd said the strategy, devised during closed session meetings between the board and its lawyers, also sets up the vote so that the proposed Lake Luciana project will fail.

Wagenknecht’s decision to recuse himself means that at least one supervisor would have to switch sides on Dec. 1 to avoid a tied vote. If the board ties 2-2, the county will revert to the planning commission’s preliminary decision in February to reject the project.

That’s the plan, according to Dodd.

“We’ve discussed that the vote wouldn’t change anyway, so just go ahead and put on the hearing, and the same outcome would occur,” Dodd said.

Dodd, the one supervisor who opposed the re-hearing and one of the two votes originally in favor of Lake Luciana, said he is outraged by the process.

“The idea that we would try to right an alleged Brown Act violation by going into closed session to develop a strategy to beat that charge seems like a sham to me,” Dodd said. “When the word gets out of how this was done, I’m embarrassed for the institution of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, because that’s not the way this board has done things in the past.”

“Let me be clear,” Dodd added “I believe the county could have defended these charges straight up. … We owe (developers) due process, and to make them come back and spend all their time and money with experts and re-do this hearing knowing full well that it was going to lose anyway, we should have just fought this straight up in a court of law.”

No violation?

Supervisor Mark Luce, who, like Dodd, voted for Lake Luciana, confirmed that the board discussed the hypothetical outcome of the Lake Luciana vote during closed session.

“If there’s a tied vote, there basically is a ‘no decision,’ so the planning commission decision will stand,” Luce said. He said supervisors will have an opportunity to vote differently on Dec. 1, but that he does not expect anyone to change their minds.

Unlike Dodd, Luce defends the county’s right to hold these discussions during closed session.

“It’s entirely appropriate and consistent with the Brown Act to talk about litigation in closed session,” Luce said.

Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer agreed that the board’s discussion was proper under the Brown Act, which allows supervisors to meet during closed session to discuss litigation or potential litigation.

“The Brown Act clearly provides that the board can meet with its attorney to receive advice and discuss legal options and strategies open to the county with respect to any litigation,” Westmeyer said. “While I can’t comment on what has occurred in closed session, and no one else should be commenting on what has occurred in closed session, I can tell you that we have had no closed sessions that have violated the Brown Act.”

On the other hand, Jim Ewert, a lawyer for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said that the board can discuss its legal liability during closed session, but is strictly prohibited from discussing the outcome of an upcoming vote.

“Any discussion of what a potential vote can be or anything like that is an egregious violation of both the spirit of the law and the law itself,” Ewert said.

Mike Durkee, a Bay Area lawyer representing Lake Luciana developer Criswell Radovan, said he does not know enough about the board’s meetings to comment on Dodd’s claims. Still, he said that the new hearing is a charade.

“What’s the value and justice if you spend all of this to get a deadlocked vote?” Durkee asked.

Dillon, Wagenknecht and Caldwell declined comment, noting that the Brown Act prohibits them from discussing closed session meetings.

Correction: Jim Ewert's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article,