Perhaps some of you heard of my little dust up with the Colusa City Council last week – in two separate meetings. For those who havent, I will fill you in.
For the past year, I have requested the City Council to put an end to serial meetings, which are kinds of communications that greatly limit the publics access to information and the opportunity to monitor and participate in the decision-making process of their elected officials.
When I attempted to deliver a public comment, one city councilman said he didnt have to take ” crap” from me and walked out. Two other members insisted I cant accuse elected officials of violating provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The first councilman is absolutely right. He can resign from public office and not take crap from anyone. The others are absolutely wrong. I can accuse them, I did accuse them, and I will likely accuse them again.
The 1953 Brown Act and subsequent amendments require the publics business to be discussed, deliberated, and decided in public for one reason only: So people can maintain control over their elected representatives and the taxpayer funded agencies they created.
If council members accused of violating a 60-year-old sunshine law can only conjure images of them sitting together in dark, smoke-filled back rooms, drinking brandy, and contemplating how to peddle influence or raid public coffers to pad their own pockets, then they need to delve deeper into the legislation. Its time to put down ” Brown Act for Dummies” and look at authoritative opinions and case law where Brown Act provisions have been applied in real life.
In 2003, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer affirmed that serial meetings are communications involving less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which ” taken as a whole” involves a majority of the bodys members.
While that could mean communications from Member A to Member B to Member C…that is not the only way in which a serial meeting occurs.
When a city executive acts as the hub of a wheel and feeds substantive information to the various spokes on matters that are within their subject matter jurisdiction, whether he meets with them one at a time, two at a time, electronically, or by telephone, then serious Brown Act issues are going to arise.
” Conversations which advance or clarify a members understanding of an issue, or facilitate an agreement or compromise among members, or advance the ultimate resolution of an issue, are all examples of communications which contribute to the development of a concurrence as to action to be taken by the legislative body,” Lockyer noted. ” Accordingly, with respect to items that have been placed on an agenda – or those likely to be placed upon an agenda – members of legislative bodies should avoid serial communications of a substantive nature concerning such items.
Ironically, the same councilman that said I am ” making this crap up” suggested last week to another councilman – who simply asked for a document – that the councilman would be more agreeable to passing a deficit budget sight unseen if he would just spend more time talking to the city manager.
No! If such communications are permitted to occur in private, then city officials could – and probably would – conduct most or all of the publics business in secret.
In Stockton Newspapers Inc. v. Members of City of Stockton Redevelopment Agency (1985), the 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded that a series of one-on-one telephone calls between the city attorney and members of the legislative body regarding a property transfer constituted a ” meeting” under the provisions of the Act.
” Since deliberation connotes not only collective discussion but also the ˜collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision, the Brown Act is applicable to collective investigation and consideration short of official action.
The Appellate court cited Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1968) as precedence. In that case, the California Supreme Court affirmed ” an informal conference or caucus permits crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance. There is rarely any purpose to a nonpublic pre-meeting conference except to conduct some part of the decisional process behind closed doors. Only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices.”
I am not accusing Colusa officials of meeting informally with each other to discuss or deliberate the publics business. I am accusing them of having substantive discussions with city staff from which ” collectively” they advance an ultimate action.
I understand the citys desire to ” make Colusa great again,” but not if its a return to the 1950s, minus the liquor and cigars.
If Colusa officials want me to stop accusing them of Brown Act violations, they should probably stop admitting to them. Better yet, stop committing them.
If the council prefers Brown Act accusations to be vetted by the judicial, they should remember there is more than their pride and reelection aspirations at stake. If the court interprets that action occurred following serial communications, it is the action itself that could be reversed.–