After the Los Angeles Times and others complained about the county supervisors’ closing the doors during a meeting with Governor Jerry Brown about shifting state prisoners to the county, the supervisors asked the legislature to carve out a narrow exception to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

The supervisors want the law amended to allow them to meet privately with the U.S. president or the governor on issues posing threats to public buildings or public services. -db

From the Los Angeles Times, February 7, 2012, by Ari Bloomekatz.

Full story

The State Attorney General narrowed the scope of the real estate negotiation exception to the Brown Act, the open meeting law. The interpretation places higher value on the public’s right to know over local government’s interest in protecting bargaining power in real estate negotiations. -db

From Best Best & Krieger Attorneys at Law, February 3, 2012.

Full story

Debate over the use of iPads by city council members during meetings continues in Petaluma with no consensus as yet.

Some say that it is invaluable in allowing members to gain access to documents, research information and eliminate volumes of paper. Others say that the public may think that the iPads are being used to send and receive messages pertaining to city business in violation of the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act. -db

From the Petaluma Patch, February 6, 2012, by Karina Ioffee.

Full story

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times says the board of supervisors for Los Angeles County “displays its contempt for the public” by closing the door before discussing such vital issues as the shift of convicts from state facilities to the county.

The Times argues that the mere wish to speak frankly does not allow a public agency to close its doors and the exemption cited for closing the door on the convict issue was passed in the 1970s to allow a government body to discuss how to keep protesters from denying citizens and workers access to public buildings. -db

From an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2012.

Full story

The Rio School District has over half of the 36 complaints about violations of the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, according to a report by the district attorney’s office.

The office said it might have to take legal action against the district unless they paid greater attention to the issue, perhaps providing training for board members. -db

From the Ventura County Star, January 25, 2012, by Cheri Carlson.

Full story

A group of citizens has been able to forestall a move by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to restrict the public in addressing the board.

A proposal before the board would limit speakers to three minutes for  various items on the agenda and two minutes for items not on the agenda. The board has also been asked to strengthen rules allowing them to throw disruptive speakers out of the meeting. -db

From the Los Angeles Daily News, January 10, 2012, by Christina Villacorte.

Full story

According to one former county counsel, it is legal for school board members to participate in campaigns for bond measures so long as public funds are not involved, but questions arose when all trustees for the San Mateo County Community College District served on a committee that met in private to plan a bond measure campaign. -db

From a commentary in The Almanac, January 10, 2012, by Dave Boyce.

Full story

A Visalia resident discovered that without public hearing last October, the Visalia City Council approved a $50,000 expense account for its newly appointed Elections Task Force.

The city claims it feared a lawsuit so was justified in acting in closed session, but no one was threatening to sue over the creation of the task force. -db

From an editorial in the Visalia Times-Delta, January 9, 2012.

Full  story

The lawsuit over closed lunch meetings of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors is going to the California Supreme Court.

The suit centered on 30 closed lunch meetings in 2009 during which at least a majority of the supervisors were present. The supervisors claimed they never discussed county business during the lunches. -db

From the Visalia Times-Delta, January 10, 2012, written by Staff reports.

Full story

A state appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that the City of Montebello did not violate the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, in approving a $3.2 million real estate agreement with a businessman.

The Montebello redevelopment agency approved the deal in a closed meeting preceding a public session. -db

From the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, January 4, 2012, by Kenneth Ofgang.

Full story

The increasing numbers of closed door sessions conducted by the Stockton City Council has prompted open government advocates to protest the practice. Under a threat of bankruptcy, the council has met in closed meetings three times for every two open meetings.

The council may meet in closed session to discuss certain financial matters, but in doing so they close the public out of the discussion and deprive them of a chance to participate in crucial decisions, say the council’s critics. -db

From the Stockton Record, December 27, 2011, by Scott Smith.

Full story

A county judge ruled that four members of the Dunsmuir City Council must defend itself against allegations that they violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

A citizen sued the council for alleged conflict of interest and holding meetings without public participation. -db

From the Record Searchlight, January 2, 2012, by Sean Longoria.

Full story

Under amendments to the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, government agencies are now required to disclose more details about items under consideration at meetings. The amendments will go into effect, January 1 of 2012.

The amendments also require agencies to provide notice in writing to the media of special meetings and notice by telephone in the case of emergency meetings. -db

From the Ridgecrest Daily Independent, December 20, 2011, by Stephanie Forshee.

Full story

An ex-school board member alleged that the Galt Joint Union Elementary School District board violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting act by not allowing public comments while conducting public interviews to fill a vacant seat on the board.

The board has agreed to repeat the meeting to satisfy the Brown Act. -db

From the Lodi News-Sentinel, December 13, 2011, by Jennifer Bonnett.

Full story

In a special meeting called to discuss a draft of the general plan, a member of the city council spoke on an item not on the agenda, a possible violation of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

A council member said the council did not violate the law in that members were allowed to report briefly on their activities. -db

From Sign On San Diego,  December 1, 2011, by Jonathan Horn.

Full story

The Pasadena City Council may have blundered when they met recently to discuss job cuts in the face of budget problems. The meeting agenda was posted at 9 p.m. on a Sunday and the meeting began at 8:30 a.m. the next day.

A full 24 hour meeting notice is required by the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

From the Pasadena Weekly, December 1, 2011, by André Coleman.

Full story

Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publisher Association said that the Patterson City Council violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting act, when it failed to provide the identity of those who voted in a closed session for an interim city attorney.

Ewert said it did not matter that the rankings of candidates occurred during a discussion, that the public had the right to know who voted which way since the council reached a consensus. -db

From the Patterson Irrigator, November 30, 2011, by Nick Rappley.

Full story

Without comment a California appeals court reversed an order that the Times-Delta/Advance-Register and allies pay legal costs for Tulare County in a Brown Act suit. The newspaper and others had charged that the Tulare County Board of Supervisors violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, by conducting a series of lunch meetings closed to the public.

The supervisors said the meetings were for morale-building, and a county judge agreed that the plaintiffs did not show that the supervisors violated the Brown Act and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the county’s legal costs. -db

From the Tulare Advance-Register, November 29, 2011, written from staff reports.

Full story

An expert in open government law challenged the Barstow School Board contention that they had not violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, in failing to report a vote out of closed session.

The school board was considering the resignation of the school superintendent. -db

From the Desert Dispatch, November 21, 2011. by Katie Lucia.

Full story

C-SPAN wants the U.S. Supreme Court to break tradition and allow live television coverage of the oral arguments next March on the constitutionality of the federal health care law.

C-SPAN cited the importance of the hearings to the presidential and congressional elections. -db

From SCOTUSBlog, November 15, 2011, by Lyle Denniston.

Full story

The webcast of the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA was of such poor quality that the Internet community was effectively shut out until the question and answer period.

The community is also concerned that the committee is only asking one representative of the technology sector to testify. -db

From a commentary for the Electronic Freedom Foundation, November 16, 2011, by Rainey Reitman.

Full story

Local governments are allowed to conduct public business behind closed doors to discuss a limited range of issues. Carolyn Schuk provides a primer on the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, in the Santa Clara Weekly. -db

From a commentary in the Santa Clara Weekly, November 17, 2011, by Carolyn Schuk.

Full story

After losing bid to show the Tulare County Board of Supervisors violated open-meetings law by holding closed lunch meetings, the plaintiffs are asking the California 5th District Court of Appeals to reconsider their ruling.

The Court ordered the plantiffs to pay legal costs in ruling the issue moot since the supervisors no longer conducted lunch meetings. -db

From the Visalia Times-Delta, November 15, 2011, by David Castellon.

Full story

A California  appeals court reversed a lower court ruling, holding that a private citizen could enforce a contract calling for open board meetings by corporations receiving government funds.

“We believe that the purpose of the provisions requiring compliance with the Brown Act was to ensure that meetings…relating to publicly funded programs would be open to the public and to extend to the general public the right to be informed regarding the matters to be discussed at such meetings and other Brown Act protections,” the appellate judge wrote. -db

From the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, November 14, 2011, by Kenneth Ofgang.

Full story

The presiding judge of the Los Angeles Juvenile Court plans to open court hearings to the public by the end of the month in an attempt to bolster public confidence by improving accountability and transparency.

The court deals with child abuse and neglect and foster care placement. Many social workers oppose the plan out of concerns for the privacy and the children. The proceedings would be presumed open unless someone objects or a judge decides to close them. -db

From the Los Angeles Times, November 9, 2011, by Garrett Therolf.

Full story

The Orange County Sanitation District admitted to violating the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, when it voted on pay raises for 17 managers and 18 “confidential” workers behind closed doors. They will conduct a revote.

Because the workers are not represented by a bargaining group, the public has the right to discuss the raises and witness the vote. -db

From the Orange County Register, November 7, 2011, by Tony Saavedra.

Full story

The 5th District Court of Appeals dismissed an open government suit by an open government advocate challenging closed lunch meetings held for morale-building purposes by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors.

The court said that there was no relief since the supervisors had stopped holding the meetings alleged to be violations of the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act. -db

From the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, November 7, 2011, by Kenneth Ofgang.

Full story

A Delaware open government coalition sued in federal court over a 2009 state law that gives the Chancery Court license to arbitrate business disputes between consenting parties. The Chancery Court set up procedures that make the hearings confidential and not part of the public record.

The coalition wants the court to declare the law and rules unconstitutional and the defendants to desist from conducting hearings in secret. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 26, 2011, by Sean Kelly.

Full story

With two vacancies on the five-member board, the Palm Drive Hospital board is facing allegations that it violated California’s open meeting laws in meetings involving two directors. Seventy-two hour notice was not provided for meetings to review proposals to join with other hospitals. -db

From The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, October 20, 201, by Bob Norberg.

Full story

Citzens backing a plan to widen Highway 1 in Pacifica allege the planning commission violated Brown Act by voting on the issue when it was not on the agenda.

The planning commission voted to ask Caltrans to extend the public comment period for the environmental impact report beyond October 22 when it expires. -db

From the Contra Costa Times, October 17, 2011, by Julia Scott.

Full story

The Friends of Friday Night Football filed a lawsuit against the Palos Verdes Peninsula United School District claiming the district violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, when they abruptly voted to shut down a project to provide stadium lights.

The advocates of stadium lights had raised money from the project and proceeded with the approval of the district until neighbors near the school stated their opposition to the lights. The advocates said it was not clear in the posted agenda that the district was planning to vote on the fate of the project. -db

From dailybreeze.com, October 6, 2011, by Melissa Pamer.

Full story

The San Mateo District Attorney’s Office is investigating an alleged violation of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law after, without it being posted on the agenda, the Pacific Planning Commission took up Caltrans’ plan to widen Highway 1. -db

From the Pacifica Patch, October 5, 2011, by Camden Swita.

Full story

Baylor University President and former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr writes that there are lots of good reasons to improve public access to the deliberations over vital issues by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Starr notes that the current court has ruled emphatically for the First Amendment but is loathe to allow the public easy access to their courtroom by allowing cameras. He says that if the Court will not allow cameras, Congress should act. -db

From an op-ed in The New York Times, October 2, 2011, by Kenneth W. Starr.

Full story

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times argues there few reasonable justifications for the Los Angeles County supervisors to hold discussions with Gov. Jerry Brown behind closed doors on the impending shift of inmates and  parolees to local control.

In discussing policy concerning the shift, the supervisors claimed they had to meet privately to confer about security. -db

From an editorial by the Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2011.

Full story

With San Luis Obispo County  judges awarding themselves over $235,000 in annual benefits, the California Attorney General is considering whether the Commission on Judicial Performance can bring sanctions against them.

With control over the budget, the judges began giving themselves extra benefits without complying with state regulations regarding compensation from public funds and with the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law. -db

From the Cal Coast News, September 26, 2011, by Karen Velie.

Full story

A former  City Council candidate has filed a complaint with the San Bernardino County District Attorney alleging that the council had committed two open meeting violations.

The first was not reporting an action taken during a closed session and the second concerned a resolution to create a supplemental retirement plan. -db

From the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, September 23, 2011, by Sandra Emerson.

Full story

The Tri-City Healthcare District board has been accused of violating the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, by holding a closed door session on strategic directions for the district before convening again in closed session to evaluate the performance of their CEO.

Critics said the session on setting strategic directions should have been on an agenda and open to the public. An attorney for the district said the board could evaluate personnel on goals and objectives that do not have to be public records. -db

From the San Diego Union-Tribune, September 23, 2011, by Aaron Burgin.

Full story

After a preliminary finding in May that the Capistrano Unified School District violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, the Orange County District Attorney’s office announced this week that they could not corroborate the finding.

But the office found a lot to fault, using colorful language to criticize the way the district conducted meetings. -db

From The Orange County Register, September 20, 2011, by Scott Martindale.

Full story

An editorial in the Beaumont Texas Enterprise argues that the Congressional supercommittee to find $1.5 trillion to cut from the federal budget should conduct its deliberations in public.

Some legislators and sponsoring a bill requiring the committee to hold open hearings and disclose any contacts members of the committee make with lobbyists. That latter requirement would provide some interesting information. -db

From an editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise, September 12, 2011, by Enterprise editorial staff.

Full story

A group of Senate Republicans wants the Congressional supercommittee formed to make $1.5 trillion in cuts to the budget open to the public. The Republicans not only favor admitting the press and public but also live streaming of the proceedings.

In its first meeting, the subcommittee voted to allow some closed meetings but pledged to make all votes public. -db

From The Hill, September 8, 2011, by Alexander Bolton.

Full story