ATC Meeting 9/15 – Brown Act Debate
Please see a similar case in Agua Dulce, an unincorporated town of Los Angeles: http://www.vanguardnews.com/agua/ADTC/2005/050601judgement.htm
The question: Why is Altadena Town Council afraid to amend their bylaws to follow the Brown Act? The Brown Act, originally passed in 1953, “was enacted in response to mounting public concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials” (From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act). It was stated by the Chairman and other Councilmembers that the Altadena Town Council does not follow the Brown Act. One member stated that after meeting with an attorney, it was noted that Councilmembers could be held liable for their actions as a result of following the Brown Act. Another Councilmember remarked that we might as well get insurance to protect ourselves against lawsuits if we were to abide by the Brown Act. Most Councilmembers were not even familiar with the Brown Act. Councilmember Ken Roberts asked the question, “Aren’t we following the Brown Act?” The answer is no.
The next question is, what are Councilmembers doing currently or in the past that makes them so afraid of potential lawsuits as a result of Brown Act violations?
At the beginning of the meeting, I moved to make a motion for the following item to be placed on the agenda: “California Brown Act – Motion and Discussion” under No. 9 – New Business. The intention was to bring the Altadena Town Council, and most importantly, the public, to the realization that several violations of the Brown Act have been committed by the Altadena Town Council. The Brown Act (http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf) clearly states that it governs meetings held by local legislative bodies (P. 1), including advisory committees such as Town Councils (P. 5).
I made a second motion under New Business that was seconded by Councilmember Okorie Ezieme: “I move that the Altadena Town Council conduct its meetings in compliance with the California Brown Act to ensure fair and open meetings that are transparent and which allow the citizens of the Altadena community the ability to observe that actions and deliberations of the Town Council are in the best interests of the community.”
Councilmember Okorie Ezieme and I battled heavily in support of the Brown Act, but both motions failed. What does this really mean? It affects everything. The democratic thread from which our society is stitched is threatened when we only have representation by a few. As stated in a letter from California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, “several minds are better than one, and . . . through debate and discussion, the best ideas will emerge”. This is why the Brown Act was created, but the Altadena Town Council feels that although they follow the majority of the Brown Act, the gray areas not followed can be manipulated without holding themselves liable for their actions. This is very unfair to the community.
We can conclude that the citizens of Altadena will get the best representation when all members are working together on the same page, when secret meetings and secret ballots are not acceptable, when we all know and understand the rules, and when we can all be held accountable for our actions.
It is up to the community to hold its elected officials responsible. Please take a moment to click on the link above to see the Brown Act for yourself.
#1 by Eric Dysart on September 16th, 2009
Quote
Given the specificity of the Brown Act and the prohibition against serial meetings and email discussions between a quorum of the council, I believe that no practical way to implement the Act without exposing the community to expensive and frivolous litigation.
For example, if a simple majority of council members responded to this discussion on this website, this discussion and website would be in violation of the Brown Act. I would rather that a discussion be allowed to take place in this public forum where the public can listen to and participate in it.
Technically, if Mr Simmons expresses his opinion on a current or future point of business before council and half of the other council members read and consider that opinion, this website could be prohibited under the Brown Act.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the Act and what I think Councilman Simmons is trying to do, but the current definition is not legally practical. I think that the council can develop and adopt guidelines that support the Act’s intent of transparency in this modern age without increasing the risk of litigation.
#2 by gloriana casey on September 16th, 2009
Quote
Hi, I did get to page 64 of the Brown Act, before I had to rest! It is a long one, however what I have gleamed is that closed door sessions would not apply to Herbert, as he is not an employee, but an elected official. It also seems that rules and regulations are to be given to new members, and I do not believe that this was the case. In the future, it would certainly be an excellent idea, to provide and hand deliver or mail each new member with a packet of necessary information.
Secondly,I believe that most of the members of our census tract would be interested in hearing if a problem exists, and that the public discussion of any problem would be of benefit to the public. Perhaps, Herbert went about his creation of the Student/Teacher award of the Year/Month without all of the necessary information, but the enthusiasm and idea are too important to lose.
Somehow, having a closed door meeting about misdirected energy would be better served in a public forum, as “behind closed doors” does seem to have a “star chamber” effect, and makes a person seem quilty of something, when I do not believe that was the case. By public discussion of what was done and what should have been done, we all learn to be better members of our community. Again, what I have gleamed from the Brown Act is that this would be the proper way to proceed in the future.
Also, this Brown Act does give the public a right to know what its elected officials are doing even, as the act states, If it could prove embarrasing to the official. Well, that’s life, and we learn not only from our mistakes , but from others mistakes too.
I also realize that “fear of litigation” seems to be the driving point of many public bodies…which is a sad comment on contemporary America, but again, with full access of knowledge the public trust is kept, and more people are inclined to feel that they are part of the collective democracy.
Please stop with the closed door meetings, as there are very few reasons to have any, especially in a city of this size. At this point on our nation’s history, i believe that transparency is the best safeguard for the public’s trust. It makes more citizens feel comfortable about being involved in local government, which is the closest thing to pure democracy that we can ever get!
#3 by Herbert Simmons on September 16th, 2009
Quote
Eric,
I don’t believe that a discussion on a website would qualify as a violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act’s ultimate purpose is “to provide the public with an opportunity to monitor and participate in the decision-making processes of boards and commissions” (P. 12). Your concern would be applicable if online communications were occurring privately within a quorum regarding actions to be taken. As discussions on this website are accessible to the public, however, and encourage public input, they would be in accordance with the Brown Act and not in violation of it as you stated. Thank you for your input.
#4 by Holly Rundberg on September 17th, 2009
Quote
Herbert, is this desire for transparency related at all to the TC meeting that was held in August where they decided to go forward with an investigative committee on your Student & Teacher of the Month program? I ask because you raised this issue and when something rears it’s head it doesn’t usually happen without something powering it.
I have not heard from you or anyone concerned why this has come up?
Holly
#5 by gloriana casey on September 17th, 2009
Quote
Yes, Holly, I do believe that trasnparency is the issue. The Pasadena Weekly comment from Andre Coleman seemed rather dramatic. I believe that as a new elected councilman that Herbert Simmons was trying to energize the community with his Student/Teacher of the Month/Year awards. This is a much needed shot in the educational arm which certainly would support the ideas of President Obama’s back to school speech. We desperately need to infuse our schools, students , and teachers with appreciation and rewards for their accomplishments. The gifted students are recognized, but not many others. We need to do more to start students on a good path with community recognition, and I’m sorry that his idea seems to be lost in this shuffle.
I have read the Brown Act, and it would be following those regulations by having a public meeting re: these charges rather than closed door sessions. Mr. Sund stated in the Weekly quote that this was a “personnel’ matter; however, Mr. Simmons is not personnel ( which , under the Act do have closed door meetings.) As an elected official, he is relying on the Brown Act for a public forum so that all of the issues can be raised. The Brown Act does say that these issues are important for the public to be a part of, and so they should be made public. I believe Mr. Simmons wants the Act to be followed so that the public can be made aware of his position. It is sad that the Weekly article seems to cast a cloud over his work. By discussing this with a public forum; the public will be able to add comments and clear up any confusions. Sadly, it is appearing in print as if Mr. Simmons is guilty of something. “using position to raise money!” Well, he returned the money as soon as he was made aware of the problem and notified his census tract members by e-mail. . He is now prodeeding alone with this project as the city council does not seem to have an interest in it. I did attend the City council meeting of 9/15/09 where a gentleman said that they didn’t have to follow the Brown Act. However, the Brown Act does not include any exceptions to any group!
I believe that Mr. Simmons hopes that the city council will support this project, and I do too. Perhaps this negative publicity will be a boon to the program. So, Holly, please keep in mind the words of John F. Kennedy, “Where there’s smoke, there’s usually a smoke making machine.” Please focus on the positive results which can be gained for the students and teachers of Altadena.
#6 by Steve Lamb on September 18th, 2009
Quote
There are several recent lawsuits regarding Town Councils and the Ralph M. Brown act. These court cases have all found that Town Councils once they either get money from a governmental agency in any manner OR become a part of an approval process are subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Altadena Town Council has been getting $12000 a year in “free” recording and televising of their meetings from the Board of Supervisors for some 15 years now. The Altadena Town Council has been getting free rent and meeting space first from the Altadena Library District, a governmental agency, and then the Board of Supervisors at the community center for a total of thirty seven years.
The Altadena Town Council as a place where applications go and are heard was added to the Altadena Community Statndards District as a part of that ordinance four years ago.
SOOOOOOooo “friends” the argument is moot. The Altadena Town Council meets the standards set down by the courts to have to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act. All it will take is a lawsuit (About ten grand total) to be filed and won (a drop kick with all the local precident) and all these star chamber proceedings and secret meetings, deals ,and conspiracies will finally come to a well deserved end.
#7 by Reid on September 25th, 2009
Quote
Herbert, I am curious. The header on your webste says it is paid for by you, yet you have advertisements. Are you providing those free of charge? Sorry to post this question here, but I did not see any other more appropriate area to ask this question.
#8 by admin on September 25th, 2009
Quote
I do not charge for advertising. Anyone who has a local business here in Altadena and the surrounding areas can advertise on this site at no charge.
#9 by Reid on September 25th, 2009
Quote
Good service – thank you for your response.
#10 by Eric on October 1st, 2009
Quote
Mr Simmons,
In response to #3, the Brown act specifically prohibits electronic communication between a quorum to develop a position, whether the public has access or not. While I agree that this type of discussion board improves the transparency of local government proceedings, it can be viewed as technically against the rules as they are currently stated. I’m not worried about the intent, but the letter of the law.
As seen with our pending cell tower issue, we need faster responses to the issues at hand, and this type of website could help with that. Unfortunately, the Brown act has not kept up with technical and social developments and discourages debate outside a face-to-face public forum. Because other council members could read your opinions and develop a position away from a formal public meeting, you may inadvertently turn yourself into an “insider” and face potential litigation for operating outside what the Brown Act defines as a public meeting.
Pingback: For Altadenans
#11 by Altadenan on November 8th, 2009
Quote
The ATC violates the Brown Act all the time. The ATC is comprised of a clique of people who think they own Altadena. The violate the Act every time they get on the phone with each other or attend one of their silly parties or events sponsored by one of the silly organizations in town like Altadena Heritage. The ATC and their cheerleading clique do not represent the majority of people in Altadena.