The Montebello City Council may have violated the Brown Act, California’s open government law, when they allegedly discouraged public participation leading up to a November 16 city council meeting. -DB
MONTEBELLO, Calif. – The District Attorney’s Office is investigating allegations that a special meeting of the City Council violated the Brown Act, officials said Thursday.
Citizens for Open Public Participation, a Walnut-based organization, sent a letter to the District Attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division claiming City Council “intentionally acted in a manner that prevented effective public participation” leading up to the Nov. 16 City Council meeting, according to a copy of the letter.
The meeting saw the appointment of former Los Angeles City Councilman Nick Pacheco as interim City Administrator. That appointment was undone by the City Council earlier this month.
“Obviously, they’re very serious concerns that a lot of us share,” said Mayor Bill Molinari, who became Mayor after the alleged violation.
Assistant Head Deputy Jennifer Lentz Snyder said the District Attorney’s Office will investigate a complaint, or complaints, to determine if a violation occurred.
Councilwoman Kathy Salazar doubts the legitimacy of claims made in the letter.
“We always make sure the agenda is posted more than 24 hours before a council meeting,” Salazar said.
In a 3-0 vote, on Nov. 16, former mayor Rosie Vasquez was joined by council members Robert Urteaga and Salazar in appointing Pacheco interim City Administrator.
The letter states that motions passed on Nov. 16 should be voided.
However, the City Council swiftly voided Pacheco’s contract once two new councilmen were sworn in, replacing Vasquez and Saucedo Rodriguez, according to city documents.
Since the council voided Pacheco’s contract, he did not receive severance pay.
Rosemead resident James Flournoy said he helped draft the letter and should the District Attorney’s Office find the meeting violated the Brown Act, it would help absolve the city of financial liability in regards to Pacheco’s contract.
The District Attorney’s Office expects a quick investigation.
“If any action is going to be taken it typically has to happen within 30 or 90 days,” Lentz Snyder said.
Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Newspaper group