Petitioner says mayor's $6,500-per-household estimate lacked supporting records; appeal denied

Director Pearson denied an appeal from Maurice Rocovich seeking records the city relied on when Mayor Ben Hilliard told residents the city faced roughly $6,500 in settlement exposure per household, saying the city conducted a reasonable search and properly classified withheld material as privileged and draft work product.

Rocovich, appearing for himself, told the panel he had asked narrowly for existing records that would identify the inputs behind the mayor’s public figure and said the city alternately told him no responsive records exist and that responsive records are privileged. "On 02/10/2026, during an official meeting, Mayor Ben Hilliard publicly stated that settlement exposure amounted to approximately $6,500 per household," Rocovich said, explaining he sought records that would show how that number was calculated.

Mr. Smith, representing Woodland Hills, said the mayor’s CAO reply explained the method used to arrive at the $3.3 million total — and that there is no standalone spreadsheet. "If you look yourself and you get that 3,300,000, you divide it by $5.20, you get 6,346," Smith said, describing the mayor’s explanation and arguing no separate formal calculation exists to produce for inspection.

Records custodian Jody Stones testified that she searched the requested date range (02/01/2026–02/23/2026) and used search terms including "6,500," "settlements," "exposure," and "claims." Stones said the only responsive record she located beyond meeting minutes was a letter from the mayor to the city attorney about a planned February 10 statement, and she reported the office’s limited staff and lack of shared spreadsheets or formal calculation files.

Rocovich rebutted that the mayor’s public remarks referenced specific inputs — notice-of-claim amounts, attorney-fee estimates, possible loan interest and staff time — and that those inputs should be identifiable as records or, if none were relied upon, the city should say so. "The mayor presented a specific damage amount, a specific per household number, during an official meeting. He presented this as factual, and now he's saying he has nothing other than the back of a paper," Rocovich said.

After in-camera review of documents and testimony, Director Pearson found a reasonable search had been conducted and that the withholdings were supported as attorney-client privileged material, work product and drafts. "As far as the withheld records, I find that they are properly classified as protected attorney client privilege and attorney work product as well as drafts," Pearson said, and concluded the public interest favoring disclosure did not outweigh the interest in nondisclosure. He denied the appeal and said a written decision will be issued within seven business days; either party may appeal to district court within 30 days.

The ruling resolves appeal 2026-068 for now; the director’s written order will provide the court-appeal timeline and next steps.