Public Records Non-Compliance, Filing Suit, and Non-Response

Answer

It is not clear to me whether the lack of response you discuss below is related to a request under the Public Records Act.  If it is, then the options available, generally speaking, are the ones you note below.  That is, you can try to bring the failure of the agency to comply with the PRA to the attention of someone within the agency who may have a better understanding of the agency’s legal obligations and the power to get the agency to act (e.g., the attorney for the agency) and, if all else fails, you can file a lawsuit.

The Public Records Act provides for the recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties, to reduce the financial barrier for suing to enforce the PRA.  If you are considering legal action, you might try submitting a request through CFAC’s Lawyer’s Assistance Request Form at http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/lawyers-assistance-request-form/.

If the “official request” you filed with the superintendent of schools was not a PRA request, then it is possible that some other rule or law related to that type of request imposes obligations on the official to respond to your request.  It may also be the case, however, that the superintendent is not obligated to respond.

With respect to the meetings, there is generally no obligation for legislative bodies of local or state agencies to place items on meeting agendas at the request of citizens, although particular bodies may have adopted particular rules providing for citizen input in the agenda-setting process.  As for speaking at the meetings that are subject to the Brown Act, the body must “provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”  Cal. Govt. Code Section 54954.3 (reproduced below).

There are limitations on this right to address the body, however.  The body need not allow members of the public to address the body on an item that has already been considered at a public meeting where public comment was allowed, unless the item has been “substantially changed” since the body heard the item. Id. at 54954.3(a).  The body may also adopt “reasonable regulations” to govern public comment, including the total amount of time that may be used for each item or for each speaker. Id. at 54954.3(b).

The body may not, however, “prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.” Id. at 54954.3(c).  In other words, the body can restrict speakers to addressing certain items and can also restrict the amount of time for speaking, but if a particular item is legitimately the subject of public comment, the body should not restrict the speech because it is critical of the body.

With respect to clearing the room for disruption, the Brown Act does provide that “in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session.”  Cal. Govt. Code Section 54957.9.

Conceivably, if an attempt to address the body during public comment time was deemed inappropriate under some reasonable application of the body’s regulations for public comment, as authorized by Section 54954.3(b) and the speaker refused to step down such that “orderly conduct of [the] meeting [was rendered] unfeasible,” the body could order the individual who refused to stop speaking removed from the meeting.  Unless such individual removal would not restore order, however, it does not appear that the body should adjourn or continue the meeting in closed session.  In other words, clearing the room should be a measure of last resort. I hope this information is useful to you.  Good luck.

54954.3. (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.

However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.

(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.