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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

With local authorities hamstrung by conflict of interest and lack of resources, California’s state attorney general office may step up to investigate alleged open meeting violations by the Willows City Council during a June 14 closed meeting.

The council has been accused of discussing items not on the agenda and the budget in a closed session, both possible violations of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law. -db

From the Orland Press Register, September 7, 2011, by Rob Parsons.

Full story

The Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office informed backers of the outgoing Santa Barbara City College president that the college Board of Trustees had not violated the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law, by not disclosing the outcome of Superintendent-President Andreea Serban’s evaluation.

The backers of the former president are seeking to recall three of the trustees. -db

From the Santa Barbara Independent, September 8, 2011, by Chris Meagher.

Full story

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

The Marin County district attorney told the Novato City Council they had to remedy an alleged open meeting violation by holding a repeat of its review of an affordable housing project. The new meeting was held August 23.

California’s Brown Act, the open meeting law, requires public agencies to post their agendas at least 72 hours before a meeting, but in holding a closed meeting on the project on July 26, the City Council did not post the agenda in time and should have postponed the meeting, according to an editorial in the Marin Independent Journal. -db

From an editorial in the Marin Independent Journal, August 26, 2011.

Full story

Schools watchdog Jim Reardon lost his suit against the Capistrano Unified School District when a judge ruled the district properly dealt with an alleged viiolation of California’s Brown Act, the open meeting law.

After Reardon challenged the district over a March closed door meeting to  partially restore pay cuts to employees, the district met again to vote a second time on the issue. Reardon claimed they should have also admitted to violating the Brown Act.

But in the ruling, Superior Court Judge James El Loveder said the Brown Act does not required admitting the violation, only to remedy the alleged violation. -db

From the Orange County Register, August 25, 2011, by Scott Martindale.

Full story

Republican Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio didn’t like his chances of avoiding an embarrassing Youtube video from going viral on the internet so he did what a self-interested politician might do. He enlisted the police to confiscate cameras from citizens attending a townhall meeting.

The only trouble is that he now has to contend with two embarrassing videos showing police confiscating the cameras since television crews were there taping everything. Oppression has its consequences, some more ironic than others. -db

From Pixiq, August 23, 2011, by Carlos Miller.

Full story

Sam Capistrano resident Jim Reardon sued the Capistrano Unified School District  in March claiming the board held a closed door meeting to partially restore teacher salaries and failed to report their actions.

Without acknowledging a violation of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, the board subsequently held a public meeting to discuss teacher salaries, but Reardon’s lawyer said to rectify a violation, the board needed to admit they  erred. -db

From the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch, August 23, 2011,  by Penny Arévalo

Full story

Two board members for Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare bolted from a closed door meeting fearing that the panel had violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting act. One of the two requested a legal review of the issue during the meeting and left when he was not happy with the response.

An anonymous source said the board was discussing hiring a consultant on a possible merger with another health care institution. An open government expert said that under the law issues involving mergers may not be discussed in closed meetings. -db

From The Salinas Californian, August 22, 2011, by Jeff Mitchell.

Full story

The administrative body for California’s courts has taken steps to improve accountability and transparency by opening key meetings and increasing the time for public comment. The changes came after judges and others criticized the courts for not being open to dissent and for its secretiveness.

California Newspaper Publishers Association’s Jim Ewert said, “I think it’s a good change in policy, especially in light of the idea that the courts aren’t subject to any open meeting laws. I’m cautiously optimistic at the same time because they are regulating themselves. The jury is still out with respect to how effective that is but nonetheless, I think any attempt to provide better public access to the decision-making process and allow the public to comment is a good thing.” -db

From the Courthouse News Service, August 17, 2011, by Maria Dinezeo.

Full story

The Chico Green School lost its charter and state funding partly because the school allegedly violated the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law. The attorney for the Green School said the Brown Act did not apply to charter schools since the act did not mention them.

The judge who withdrew the state funding said charter schools provide services to the public, use public funds to finance the services and are therefore subject to the Brown Act. -db

From the Chico Enterprise-Record, August 20, 2011, by Roger H. Aylworth.

Full story

The Sacramento City Council may have violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, when it quickly adopted a plan for Sacramento redistricting  at its August 9 meeting, writes Melissa Corker for the Sacramento Press.

Corker says the council suddenly presented a new map for redistricting after months of work by a citizens’ advisory committee and passed it with a 6-3 vote, prompting speculation about whether a majority of the council had met behind closed doors to agree on the map. -db

From a commentary in the Sacramento Press, August 18, 2011, by Melissa Corker.

Full story

The Marin County District Attorney criticized the Novato City Council for deciding at the last minute to discuss an issue without informing the public. The issue concerned affordable housing, of great interest to the public. The council agreed to readdress the matter at a future meeting. -db

From the Marin Independent Journal, August 16, 2011 by Bob Rogers.

Full story

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted to reconsider a decision to move from Oakland to San Francisco after critics alleged they violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, in approving the move.

The commission is now considering a site in Oakland along with the San Francisco site. -db

From KGO-TV, August 17, 2011, by Laura Anthony.

Full story

A watchdog group has alleged that the Redding City Council violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, by not reporting on decisions made during a closed session on July 19. The Marking a Difference for Shasta group said the council failed to report decisions on an electric utility lawsuit and a civic center lease.

The city attorney denied the council had erred in reporting results of closed sessions but also said the council will make changes to improve transparency. -db

From the Redding Record Searchlight, August 4, 2011, by Scott Mobley.

Full story

The Atascadero City Council has decided without public notice or discussion to halt give-and-take during the public comment session of council meetings, says David Broadwater, a local activist.

In an opinion piece in the Cal Coast News, Broadwater writes, “Previously, under the Brown Act, in response to questions and matters raised regarding non-agenda issues, the public could expect those assembled officials may ask to clarify a question, direct people to information, briefly discuss matters raised, or direct an issue to be a subject of a staff report or agenda item at a future meeting.” -db

From a commentary in the Cal Coast News, August 3, 2011, by David Broadwater.

Full story

After opinions that a secret ballot could not be used in appointing a new member to the Menifee City Council, the council revised the plan. Under the new plan, council members will give each candidate a ranking which will be displayed to the public. The rankings will be tabulated to select the new member.

The Brown Act states, “No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.” One legal expert said the council seemed to want to avoid public discussion of the selection. One councilman said they had no intention of keeping anything from the public. -db

From the North County Times, July 27, 2011, by Jim Rothgeb.

Full story

Doug Ernst, the publisher of the St. Helena Star says an e-mail circulating in town calling for a boycott of his newspaper is in response to a news story and an opinion column written in the aftermath of a district attorney  report that found the city council had committed five violations of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.

Ernst slams the boycott, “Naturally, as a lifelong journalist, it bothers me when would-be boycotters resort to killing the messenger (me) when they don’t like the message (the City Council is breaking the law). They accuse me of ‘shenanigans’ and having a ‘personal agenda,’ but say nothing about the councilmembers’ violations of law or personal agendas. They call me ‘divisive’ and ‘self-important’ but fail to acknowledge the impact on the good citizens of St. Helena when elected leaders act as if they are above the law. Like I say, I’ve seen this kind of political behavior before, but this attack is unusual because it feels like an attempt to silence criticism of government.” -db

A commentary in the St. Helena Star, July 28, 2011, by Doug Ernst.

Full story

Critics in the San Luis Obispo community are alleging that the city council is regularly committing open meeting violations including sending an e-mail to fellow council members to generate support for an issue before the issue was listed on an agenda.

When the president of the police officer’s association asked that the e-mail be made public, the city attorney refused citing attorney/client privilege. Authorities on open government say it is illegal in itself  to invoke attorney/client privilege to cover up illegal acts. -db

From a commentary in the Cal Coast News, July 28, 2011, by Stacey Warde and Karen Velie.

Full story

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms has filed suit in New York claiming the state’s Open Meetings Law was violated in passing the law giving gays the right to marry. Among other things the group claims the Republicans met in secret to discuss the law.

The challenge is not expected to succeed at least on one count since the Republicans met as a party rather than as a Senate majority, a maneuver meant to skirt the open meeting requirement. -db

From a commentary in The Post-Star, July 25, 2011, by Mark Mahoney.

Full story

The Santa Ana City Council failed to comply with the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law when they did not allow the public to comment on issues disclose in a closed door meeting on July 18.

They also changed the location of the closed door meeting without notifying the public. -db

From a commentary in the Voice of OC, July 21, 2011, by Adam Elmahrek.

Full story

Glendale city councilman Rafi Manoukian has alleged that the council violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, when they held a closed meeting on the topic of the city manager’s impending retirement.

Although Manoukian would not say what his allegation entailed, the closed session on the city manager was posted as “Performance Evaluation – City Manager”. Since the city manager told the council he wanted to retire, it could be that issues other than performance evaluation came up at the meeting prompting Manoukian’s protest.  -db

From the Glendale News-Press, July 15, 2011, by Melanie Hicken.

Full story