The state legislature is considering a bill to strengthen the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, that would require local government agencies to post meeting agendas online beginning in 2019. The agendas would be posted in a consistent location on an agency’s homepage and be made available in a readable format, searchable and downloadable. (techwire.net, June 30, 2016, by Matt Williams)
A deputy district attorney issued a warning to the Lompoc City Council for meeting in closed session last fall to discuss negotiations concerning a project on city land. The deputy agreed with a citizen who complained that under the Brown Act deliberations about an exclusive negotiating agreement should not have held behind closed doors. (Noozhawk, July 3, 2016, by Carol Benham)
A deputy county counsel explained to the Menlo Park City School District how to comply with the Brown Act in setting up committees to involve the public in planning for the future of the district. The deputy said, in general, committees established by the school board were subject to the Brown Act. Ongoing committees on technology and audit were governed by the act, but two committees set up by the superintendent on balancing the budget and communicating with the public could be held behind closed doors. (The Almanac, June 21, 2016, by Barbara Wood)
A man who embellished his comment card with racist imagery at a Los Angeles City Council meeting has filed with the council for damages to his business and reputation and for his First Amendment rights and rights under the Brown Act. (NBC Southern California, June 16, 2016, by City News Service)
The Manhattan Beach Unified School District voted 4-1 to censure a board member for sharing information from a closed session on a controversial plan to rotate principals. (Daily Breeze, June 15, 2016, by Daniella Segura)
An economic development committee sponsored by Sacramento is asking to hold meetings in secret claiming that private-sector leaders do not feel comfortable serving on boards with open meetings. Formed in 2007, the nonprofit has done little stemming from a failure to secure participants. A deputy city attorney said the nonprofit committee was private so could meet in closed sessions but has volunteered to observe the California Public Records Act rules to provide needed transparency. (Sacramento Bee, June 13, 2016, by Anita Chabria)
A citizen and San Diegans for Open Government dropped its suit against the city of Chula Vista over the city’s alleged violation of the Brown Act. The city was accused of illegally appointing a man to a two-year term on the council during which time council members allegedly conducted a serial meeting by e-mailing their list of finalists to the city clerk. (The Star-News, June 11, 2016, by Robert Moreno)