A Superior Court judge ruled that Monrovia had not violated open meetings laws by making changes to public documents in secret before approving revisions to a development project. The judge said the changes were minor so did not violate the letter and the spirit of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law. -db From Monrovia Patch, February 21, 2011, by Nathan McIntire. Full Story
Last summer under fire, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors discontinued “morale-building” luncheon meetings not open to the public. Now the Santa Rosa City Council has resumed a practice of meeting at private dinners that they claim are solely for generating congeniality. But open government advocates are asking if it is advisable to hold the dinners privately so that members of the public cannot verify that council members discussed no city business in violation of
A former mayor of Dunsmuir is alleging there was a violation of California’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, by the city and several council members. The allegation centers on the claim that three council members were present at a meeting of Citizens for a Better Dunsmuir at which they discussed how to pay attorneys for a previous suit against the city. Experts differ over whether that constituted a Brown Act violation. -db From the Mount
A community activist has filed a complaint with the Los Angeles District Attorney alleging that in its haste to protect redevelopment money under siege by Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget cuts, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) failed to comply with California’s open meeting law, the Brown Act. The activist followed the complaint with a letter asking the CRA for a “cure and correct” action that put an end to the agency’s intent to
Sonoma County supervisors have rejected a request by opponent of an asphalt plant to reconsider their decision to not allow public comment during the final vote on the Petaluma project last year. The opponents said not allowing public comment violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law. The county said no comment was required since the supervisors held a long hearing on the project in October that allowed for extensive public comment. -db From