Question
Earlier this month our mayor – during the oral portion of the city council meeting — stated that he decided to name a city building after a former member of the council who is also a former assemblyman. He asked for unanimous concurrence of the council. Two members of the council questioned the propriety of the action, but the mayor changed the request to a majority concurrence.
The issue of naming the building and/or honoring the former colleague was NOT on the agenda.
At the next council meeting an item was put on the council agenda to discuss adopting a policy and/or procedure for naming of public buildings. The mayor appointed a committee to address the policy/procedure. However, he refused to do anything about the previous meeting’s action.
Since the issue of naming a public building was not on the council agenda – and there was no allowance for public comment – is this a Brown Act violation?
Answer
As you have presented the facts, it would certainly appear that there has been a Brown Act violation. If an action item wasn’t on the agenda, action should not be taken on it. That is not a matter that can be overridden by unanimous consent, although it appears such consent was not given in any case.
We hope that is helpful.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.