The Ridgecrest finance committee closed their doors on the public and press to discuss an item in closed session listed on the regular agenda claiming it was a personnel discussion. In reality the discussion concerned job definitions and should have been in public session under California’s open meeting law, the Brown Act. (The Ridgecrest Daily Independent, August 11, 2016, by Jessica Weston)
The Orange County District Attorney’s office found no violation of the Brown Act occurred when the Costa Mesa City Council discussed in closed session dividing the city into six voting districts and electing the mayor. The assistant DA said there had been several opportunities in public meetings to discuss the proposal. (The Orange County Register, August 5, 2016, by Louis Casiano Jr.)
Even though a hacking in February of the Orange County Transportation Authority cost over $600,000 and caused shutdown of computers and communications for days, to date the authority did not put the hacking on a public meeting agenda or release a statement about the attack. (Voice of OC, August 2, 2016, by Nick Gerda)
An ex-attorney for Los Angeles County alleged in a lawsuit over his firing that the Board of Supervisors violated the Brown Act in various ways including trying to silence critics in public sessions, limiting public comment on certain agenda items and holding illegal meetings during trips to Washington, D.C. (Courthouse News Service, July 21, 2016, by Matt Reynolds)
Palos Verde citizens have alleged that the school board violated the Brown Act in discussions of solar panels at district schools. The citizens point to several transgressions including a failure to list the panels as a closed door item on the June 22 agenda; improper discussion of an agreement waiver during a closed meeting; not disclosing actions taken on the waiver; and adding the panels to a consent agenda item for a July meeting without 72 hour notice. The district denied that they had violated the Brown Act holding that closed sessions were held to receive legal advice and that no reporting was necessary until a settlement was finalized. (The Daily Breeze, July 20, 2016, by Cynthia Washicko)
The county district attorney said the Santa Paula City Council did not violate the Brown Act in holding a private meeting on July 6 at a councilwoman’s house to discuss the campaign for a 1 percent sales tax measure for November. No action was taken during the meeting. (Ventura County Star, July 18, 2016, by Mike Harris)
Apple Valley residents are protesting a presentation by the High Desert Cannabis Association to the city council in June not the topic but the conduct of the meeting. They claim the discussion was not put on the agenda in normal fashion and instead of a presentation by one person, five people from the association spoke without allowance for open discussion by those in attendance. (Daily Press, July 7, 2016, by Matthew Cabe)
A deputy district attorney concluded that the Lompoc City Council had violated the Brown Act in a closed session discussion in September of 2015 concerning a negotiating agreement for a California Space Center project on a city-owned parcel. The deputy DA concluded that although there is a Brown Act exclusion for real estate discussions, the city discussed item outside the exemption. (Santa Maria Times, July 5, 2016, by Kenny Lindberg)