Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, frustrated by a series of alleged violations of the state's open meeting law by the Oxnard City Council, Thursday called on city residents to vote the council out of office.

"The public should be outraged that elected officials are not willing to abide by the law," he told The Times. "If they want city business to continue to be conducted behind closed doors they should preserve the status quo. But if they want officials who follow the law they should vote in a new council.

"The solution has to be political because under the present law there's not a lot our office can do. I'm tired of spending money on investigations; I wish I could bill the city of Oxnard for all the time it takes up."

Bradbury's comments touched off a wave of criticism from Oxnard officials, some of whom said his attack was politically motivated.

"The district attorney is a very political person and very politically astute. He wants to be reelected. He's always looking at other positions and would like to run for statewide office," Councilman Manuel Lopez said.

"He would like nothing better than convict several visible people to enhance his stature," Lopez added.

City Atty. Gary Gillig said Bradbury is exploiting the issue for political gain. "Bradbury aspires to higher office. I think that's his motivation in promoting the view that Oxnard conducts business in secret, and I disagree." Furthermore, Gillig added, Bradbury attacks politicians and city officials who oppose his views.

"He's been after several politicians, and he's been after me for some time," Gillig said. "I don't want to get into a controversy, but he should look into the nepotism charges against his own office."

The Ralph M. Brown Act is California's open meeting law governing public agencies. Under the act, public agencies can only meet in closed-door sessions to discuss pending litigation, personnel matters or real estate transactions.

A 1990 Ventura County grand jury investigation determined that Oxnard's City Council has violated the Brown Act four times since 1987 during closed meetings at which council members privately discussed city budget questions.

However, council members were absolved of criminal wrongdoing by the grand jury because there was no evidence that they were aware that they were committing the violations.