Brown Act roundup: California open government case in state appeals court

A California court of appeals will render a judgment this summer in a case involving a Pauma, California school district charged with not informing the public about an action to demolish depression-era federal barracks. Community activists say that the demolition of the Civilian Conservations Corp buildings were never posted on an agenda. (Valley Roadrunner, June 18, 2014, by Kim Harris)

Santa Rosa officials are embroiled into a dispute over the extent to which city council members can discuss details of labor negotiations with firefighters. A councilwoman said an opinion from the state Office of Legislative Counsel is in conflict with advice from the city attorney. She said the city attorney’s advice chilled transparency and openness under the Brown Act. (The Press Democrat,  June 9, 2014, by Kevin McCallum)

A Bear Valley newspaper is challenging the healthcare district board for leaving the time of its meeting times vague. The Bear Valley Community Healthcare District board says that one session will begin between 2 and 4 p.m. and another will begin no earlier than 5 p.m. The board is attempting to provide for closed sessions conducted before the open part of a meeting. (Big Bear Grizzly, June 11, 2014, by Judi Bowers)

A Marin Independent Journal editorial, June 4, 2014, took the Novato Fire District board to task for taking a secret vote to replace an outgoing board member. Under direction of their lawyer, the board had to rescind the vote and vote again in public session.

An editorial in the Chino Champion, June 14, 2014, cites the Novato case and a number of others in describing the difficulties of preserving open government in the state and concludes:

“Even with its constitutional protections, open government continues to be under attack. A bill which would have expanded what public agencies can discuss in private about real estate transactions made headway in the assembly until it was held back by the author near the end of the legislative session. State law limits such discussions to ‘price and terms of payment.’ But some agencies have sought more privacy in discussing real estate proposals.

Those opposed point to the court ruling that the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission violated the law by deliberating the lease of its stadium to USC in private. Secret deal making can be detrimental to good government and public benefit and can lead to corruption.”