Accessing document constituting an agenda and agency audits

Answer

1) The Brown Act is a bit confusing on this point.  As you have read, Section 54954.1 provides that “[a]ny person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet, of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person” (emphasis added).  The Act does not define the term “agenda packet.”  Section 54954.2 requires that “[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.”  Because the agenda-posting section refers only to an “agenda” and not to any “agenda packet,” it does not appear to require the posting of any additional documents that might constitute the agenda packet.  Nevertheless, posting any documents that make up the entire agenda packet would certainly seem to be more in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act.

With respect to how much information needs to be included in the agenda (e.g., whether it must include text of resolutions to be voted on, etc.), the agenda must contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting” and explains that “[a] brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.”  Govt. Code Section 54954.2.  If the entire text of a resolution to be voted on is not necessary to alert the public as to whether they may want to attend the meeting (i.e., to give sufficient notice), then the Brown Act does not seem to require its inclusion in the agenda.

As to obtaining meeting-related documents, “agendas of public meetings and any other writings, when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body, are disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act . . ., and shall be made available upon request without delay.”  Govt. Code Section 54957.5.

2) There is no general rule with respect to access to public agency audits.  The default rule is therefore the one that applies to all public records — they must be open to inspection to the public unless a provision of the PRA exempts them from disclosure.  If your request was denied under Section 6254(k), the agency should explain what federal or state law exempts the record from disclosure (note that a number of statutory provisions outside of the PRA do erect certain barriers to obtaining records related to peace officers).  To the extent your request was denied under Section 6255, the agency must “demonstrate . . . that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record” (emphasis added).  It is not unusual for agencies to cite PRA exemptions without making the necessary showing as to why the exemptions are applicable, and sometimes it can be useful to push back for such information.

Note that the Court of Appeal held that an agency that had conducted an audit report of particular employees accused of financial wrongdoing could withhold most of the report on the grounds that the privacy interests of the employees at issue (who were cleared of wrongdoing in the audit report) outweighed the public interest in disclosing the report under Section 6255. AFSCME v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 80 Cal. App. 3d 913 (1978).  But the court emphasized that “where the charges are found true, or discipline is imposed, the strong public policy against disclosure vanishes . . ..  In such cases a member of the public is entitled to information about the complaint, the discipline, and the ‘information upon which it was based.'”  Id.  More recently, a trial court refused to order the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to disclose an audit report prepared by the Long Beach city auditor concerning financial transactions by the Authority’s former CFO, but did require the disclosure of certain “narrative documents” prepared by private auditors in connection with the report.  Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1381 (2001).