Before the Vote:

Mayor Ashcraft declined a direct meeting with Mr. Patel before the vote. When Mr. Patel submitted a formal letter to Council documenting his compliance efforts and his explicit willingness to meet and resolve differences, she ignored it.

Under oath:

In deposition, Mayor Ashcraft described suing Greenway as a 'last resort' made necessary by Greenway's 'intransigence.' Her framing: 'if this is what it took, this is what it took.' She offered no explanation for why a last resort was reached without ever accepting the meeting that Mr. Patel had formally requested — or acknowledging his letter.

The record does not support the characterization of intransigence. It directly contradicts it.

Before the vote:

Mr. Daysog testified that he gave Mr. Patel's letter to Council no consideration — because it was written by an 'interested party' and therefore not reliable.

Under oath:

When asked in deposition to explain his vote, he declined — citing the confidentiality of closed-session Council discussions. He described himself as an 'umpire' who 'asked the tough questions.' When asked whether he had independently investigated any discrepancies between Mr. Patel's account and City staff's claims befor voting to sue, he testified that he had not, accepting City staff’s account without independent scrutiny.

An umpire who listens to only one side is not calling the game. He has already decided it.

When asked why she voted for litigation, she described at length (for approximately 45 minutes) why she personally disliked the Patels— including displeasure that they had been featured in a news article about Corica Park, and that the women's golf club was unhappy with new policies. She did not reference a single item in the lawsuit.

Personal grievances with no legitimate community harm are are not grounds for a lawsuit.

In deposition, she testified that she had no recollection of any issues related to the case outside of protected closed-session discussions. She offered no reason for her vote to initiate litigation.

Closed session exists to protect deliberation — not to permanently shield elected officials from explaining their decisions to the public they serve.

In deposition, he testified that the City had done 'everything in its power' to avoid litigation, and that his vote was simply to enforce contractual obligations. When asked directly what, specifically, the City had done to work with Mr. Patel to avoid litigation, he paused for more than 30 seconds. His answer: he had no comment outside of protected closed-session discussions.

Silence followed by a claim of privilege is not an answer — it is the absence of one.