First Amendment Coalition » closed meetings

LA Times editorial criticizes supervisors for excessive closed door meetings

donal brown — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:33:08 +0000

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

California: Los Alamitos councilman in trouble for violating confidentiality of closed meetings

donal brown — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:37:03 +0000

The Los Alamitos City Council voted 3-1 to prosecute Councilman Warren Kusumoto for an alleged violation of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

Kusumoto had disclosed that in closed-door discussions on a lawsuit against the city, he had a different viewpoint from the council majority. The City Attorney said in that disclosure he had violated the rule against the confidentiality of closed meetings although Kusumoto’s views on the lawsuit were well known in the community. -db

From the Orange County Register, January 18, 2012, by Roxana Kopetman.

Full story

California: San Mateo college board on shaky ground in involvement in campaign for bond measure

donal brown — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:27:20 +0000

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

California: Watchdog discovers serious open meeting violation by Visalia City Council

donal brown — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:21:35 +0000

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

Tulare supervisor lunch lawsuit goes to California Supreme Court

donal brown — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0000

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

California: State appeals court scuttles Brown Act challenge in Montebello

donal brown — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:20:09 +0000

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

Open meetings: City council barred from taking private tour of water facility

donal brown — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:43:17 +0000

California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris demonstrated the long reach of the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, in her opinion that for majority of a Southern California city council to take an invitation-only tour of a Northern California water district facility would be a violation of the law.

Harris also said that even if properly noticed and inclusive, holding a meeting at such a distance from the city would limit public access and further pose a problem under the Brown Act. -db

From the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, August 30, 2011, by Kenneth Ofgang.

Full story

California: Developers in La Jolla sue over alleged open meeting violations

donal brown — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:24:43 +0000

Developers of a controversial three-story project in La Jolla are suing the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA), a nonprofit advisory group for the city of San Diego, for violating the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.

The suit brought by Bob and Kim Whitney claims the LJCPA deliberated and voted in private over the development project and denied them access to the meetings. -db

From the La Jolla Light, July 13, 2011, by Dave Schwab.

Full story

California’s peripheral canal: Government officials holding closed meetings on funding

donal brown — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:10:11 +0000

Despite assurances by Governor Jerry Brown’s administration that all processes relating to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan would be transparent, it has surfaced that local water agencies are holding closed door meetings with state and federal officials to create a finance plan for construction of the peripheral canal.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta says, “The conflict between the Brown Administration’s assertion that the Bay Delta Conservation plan is an open and transparent process and the real ongoing practice of dealing with the most important aspects of the BDCP in private is alarming.” -db

From a commentary by the Bay Area Indy Media, July 6, 2011, by Dan Bacher.

Full story

Tulare County supervisors likely to evade suit on alleged open meeting violations

donal brown — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:43:51 +0000

A superior court judge indicated she would dismiss an open meeting lawsuit against the Tulare County Board of Supervisors from lack of solid evidence. The supervisors were alleged to have violated California’s Brown Act by meeting regularly for lunch, they claimed, to build team solidarity. -db

Visalia Times-Delta
August 21, 2010
By Valerie Gibbons

A Tulare County Superior Court judge will likely dismiss an open meetings lawsuit against the Tulare County Board of Supervisors next week.

Late Friday afternoon Judge Melinda Reed issued a tentative ruling in advance of a hearing scheduled Monday. In it, she upheld her ruling on July 1 that there wasn’t evidence to proceed with a trial, writing the lawsuit was based on “speculation and unreasonable inferences.”

Reed ruled there was no substantive proof that county business was discussed at the lunches.

“Thus petitioner fails to allege facts showing that any type of policy making discussions affecting the general public or having to do with the county’s governmental interest have taken place,” she wrote.

The two sides have been warring since February over whether Tulare County supervisors admitted violating state open-meeting laws when they certified that dozens of lunch meetings held in 2009 represented a business expense.

Southern California open-meetings watchdog Richard McKee filed a lawsuit in March alleging that the Board of Supervisors violated state open-meeting laws — known collectively as the Brown Act — when it met with a voting majority 46 times for meals in 2009. He filed the suit to end such lunch meetings.

The California Newspaper Publishers Association and the company that owns the Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register, Visalia Newspapers Inc., joined the suit in April.

McKee and the media groups contend the county’s characterization of the lunch meetings as “team building” and “building collegiality” represent an admission that the county violated the Brown Act.

In the response, County Counsel Kathleen Bales-Lange argued the lawsuit was filed frivolously.

“They have failed to allege any new material facts showing any conduct of the board that is in violation of the Brown Act,” Bales-Lange said.

The board has since suspended the practice of meeting for lunch when a voting majority is present.

The hearing will be held in Tulare County Superior Court Monday, August 23 at 8:30 a.m.

Tulare: Suit brought over alleged violations of open meeting and public records laws

donal brown — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:40:16 +0000

Eight Tulare citizens filed suit over actions by the city council who met twice in closed session to discuss the city manager’s complaints against a councilman. The lawsuit holds among other things that the closed session did not meet conditions of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, for holding a closed session. -db

Tulare Advance-Register

June 17, 2010
By Luis Hernandez

A lawsuit has been filed claiming Tulare city officials violated open meeting and public records laws.

Visalia-based attorney Michael Lampe, on behalf of eight Tulare residents, filed the suit this week in Tulare County Superior Court. It seeks the release of documents and a judge’s order on previous closed session meetings by the Tulare City Council and City Manager Darrel Pyle.

The lawsuit claims city officials violated California’s open meeting laws, known collectively as the Brown Act.

Brown Act violations occurred when council members twice met in closed session to discuss hostile work environment complaints made by Tulare City Manager Darrel Pyle against Councilman Wayne Ross, the lawsuit claims. Ross and fellow councilman David Macedo, also named in Pyle’s complaint, were asked to leave the closed session prior to the April 20 and May 18 council meetings, the lawsuit claims.

The rest of the closed session meetings, according to the lawsuit, were held in violation of the Brown Act because:

•The description for the items to be discussed didn’t comply with the law’s guidelines.

•There were no existing facts and circumstances to justify the holding of a closed session.

•There was no reasonable legal advice given about significant exposure to litigation against the city.

Pyle defended the closed session agenda items, saying Tulare’s chief deputy clerk is experienced and the city attorney’s office carefully reviewed the items before being published.

“We’ll defend our position,” he said. “We’ll defend the council and the city as an organization.”

The lawsuit names the council and city as defendants. Pyle said he hopes only one attorney firm is hired to defend the suit.

“It would be a better-coordinated effort,” he said.

Complaints

Neither side has released specifics about Pyle’s complaints about Ross and Macedo creating a hostile work environment. It is unknown what either councilman is accused of saying or doing. Although a public document hasn’t been released, Lampe said he believes neither council members were found to be at fault.

It’s that report, among others, Lampe has previously requested. The city’s denial to release those documents, in part, prompted the lawsuit, which claims a Public Records Act violation.

According to the lawsuit, Lampe requested all documents prepared in connection with the investigation, including bills charged by special counsel hired to deal with this matter. Lampe said he received the bill, but the investigative report, according to city staff, couldn’t be provided because the city wasn’t in possession of it.

According to the lawsuit, not being in possession of the report violated the spirit and express provisions of the Public Records Act.

Lampe, according to the suit, also sought:

•E-mails written by Pyle suggesting the city might initiate legal action against City Attorney Steve Kabot.

•E-mails of other writings sent to Pyle by council members expressing concerns that matters were being discussed in closed session that should be discussed in open session.

City staff admitted such documents existed, but didn’t provide them because they believed they were exempt, according to the suit. But Lampe said the documents aren’t exempt from disclosure, according to government codes.

Pyle said Lampe’s request can’t be met.

“It’s hard to give things we don’t have,” he said.

As for the communication requested, Pyle said the city attorney’s office has already deemed those attorney-client privileged material and not subject to disclosure.

The suit seeks an order to compel city staff to produce the documents.

“We believe in the legal system and we’ll live with the outcome,” Pyle said. “It’ll go through the process.”

Plaintiffs

Among others, former Tulare Mayor Thomas Drilling and local dairyman Bud Mouw are listed as plaintiffs. They are joined by Brent Sparlin, Tony Nunes III, David Phelps, Doe Clark and John and Joyce Lampe.

During the public comment portion, Drilling and Mouw spoke out in opposition of the proposed Tulare Motor Sports Complex, a project Macedo and Ross have voted against.

Lampe, who represented Ross, also previously addressed council members to state his opposition to the project.

News organizations want open hearings over West Virginia mine deaths

donal brown — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:15:19 +0000

Eight news organizations and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has asked the Mine Safety and Health Administration to conduct open hearings about the mne disaster that killed 25 miners in early this month. -db

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Press Release
April 27, 2010

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and eight news organizations today sent a letter urging the Mine Safety and Health Administration to conduct public hearings as it investigates the nation’s worst mining disaster in 25 years.

The MSHA had previously announced its plans to interview miners in the presence of attorneys for the Labor Department, the State of West Virginia and Massey Energy, while excluding the public and the news media.

The Reporters Committee, joined by The Associated Press, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the American Society of News Editors, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Charleston (W.V) Gazette, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors and the National Newspaper Association urged MSHA to comply with the wishes of at least two families involved in the accident and conduct hearings. Under the law, such hearings must be accessible to the public, as opposed to interviews that involve government investigators and company representatives but bar access to the public.

“The public interest in what happened at the Upper Big Branch Mine is monumental,” the letter said. “The presence of government investigators cannot substitute for the role of the press in examining MSHA’s enforcement of the law at the mine, and whether the accident is properly investigated.” Should the MSHA refuse to conduct an open hearing, the news media organizations asked that, at the very least, the interview recordings or transcripts be released to the press as soon as they become available, and not after MSHA completes its final report.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a 40-year-old nonprofit organization that does legal defense and advocacy work on behalf of journalists working in the United States.

The letter is available at the Reporters Committee’s website, www.rcfp.org.

Southern California: Long running ad hoc committees trample open government

donal brown — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:44:57 +0000

With 14 ad hoc committees, one four years old, the Highland City Council is needlessly conducting vast amounts of the people’s business behind closed doors, says an editorial in the Highland Community News. -DB

Highland Community News
Editorial
December 17, 2009

Ad hoc committees can serve a very useful purpose.

Operating out of public view, they can sometimes work out difficult and challenging problems meeting one-on-one with those involved in controversial items.

Ad hoc committees are not subject to the Brown Act and are not open to the press and public. They are “limited to a single purpose, are not perpetual, and to be dissolved once their specific task is completed,” according to a city of Highland report to the City Council.

That report also listed 14 ad hoc committees, one (San Manuel Planning) dating back to 2004.

The Open Space EHR/Forestry committee is four years old, Mobile Home Rent Control Committee 2 1/2 years old; five others over a year old.

First of all, we suggest that the city’s ad hoc committees should be fewer and more narrowly focused. A subject as wide as “San Manuel Planning” should be a permanent and public committee, for example. If there is a specific issue to be resolved with the Indians, that would be one matter. There will always be need for communication and cooperation with the Reservation, but to broaden it to “San Manuel Planning” covers too much territory and does require a standing committee.

That suggestion includes most of the city’s ad hoc committees.

The second issue is holding meetings out of the public view.

The Sign Review Committee, for example would include discussion that much of the public should know about and include public consideration. Not only that, but the committee includes members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce. It would be interesting to know how each stands on the sign ordinance.

Another, the “Orange County Property,” is dealing with development of the huge section of property between Seven Oaks Dam and Yucaipa.

Talk about a general subject!

We believe that the public’s business should be conducted in public with very few exceptions, and those exceptions deserve thoughtful and focused decisions by the mayor, who appoints ad hoc committees.

We are not alleging any wrongdoing; but there is the legal option against the right thing to do. We prefer the latter.