The American Civil Liberties Union is looking into an allegation that the Imperial County Board of Supervisors violated California’s Brown Act in a closed session December 15 when it voted to intervene in a federal case involving Prop 8, the state proposition making same-sex marriage illegal. -DB
By Elizabeth Variner
Did the Imperial County Board of Supervisors break the law?
It’s the question that the American Civil Liberties Union is asking as it investigates whether the Board of Supervisors violated the Ralph M. Brown Act at its last meeting.
The county voted in closed session Tuesday to intervene in a federal case involving Proposition 8, which made same-sex marriage illegal.
The ACLU is looking into whether the board violated the Brown Act, though no determination has been made yet, San Diego region ACLU Executive Director Kevin Keenan said.
“It’s an unusual thing they’ve done, to be so secretive,” he said.
The Brown Act requires public boards, commissions and councils to act and deliberate in sessions open to the public.
Keenan said the group is looking into the issue because the board did not provide the public notice that the intervention would be on the agenda. It was treated as an emergency exception and decided that morning, though in court records filed hours later, it indicated that board members had been discussing the issue for weeks.
“Is that how Imperial County should be doing its business?” he asked.
If the board did violate the act, the public was denied notice to comment on the issue, Keenan said.
“We’re very concerned that the public did not have a chance to weigh in on the decision,” he said.
The ACLU filed a public records request Wednesday for transcripts or audio files of the meeting and will continue to look into it, he said.
County Counsel Michael Rood insists there was no violation of the Brown Act.
“We certainly, definitely, do not agree that there has been a violation of the Brown Act,” he said.
The item was posted on the agenda as potential litigation, which is legal, he said. Rood also announced the actions taken at the board meeting in open session, which is required under the act.
“That’s the way it’s supposed to be done,” he said.
The public has not been denied a chance to speak, as the public comment section of the meeting is set aside exclusively for that purpose, he said. Anything within the board’s jurisdiction, which includes this case, can be spoken about during that public comment portion of the meeting.
Chairman of the Board Wally Leimgruber agreed, adding there is a public comment section at every meeting scheduled for 10:30 a.m.
Leimgruber admits he has known about the case since November, and it has been on the agenda as potential litigation, he said. It hasn’t been hidden.
This is also not the first item that board members have put on the closed session agenda, he said. However, it was decided at that time because the date to file was approaching, and the board needed to take action.
Former El Centro resident and national board member for Marriage Equality USA Fernando Lopez said the decision has a big effect on his family that still lives in the area.
Since Lopez heard from a friend about the decision, he has been doing his own research, he said. He’s even called all of the supervisors because he hasn’t been able to find any information.
“I just called as a concerned citizen,” he said.
The public was not informed about the decision or given opportunity to voice their concerns, Lopez said. If the board wanted to support the will of the people, the decision would have been made public.
“It affects me and my family, but it’s our personal lives,” he said.
Copyright © 2009 Imperial Valley Press