Statement from the Interim San Juan Bautista City Attorney Peter Spoerl Regarding District Attorney Investigation of Alleged
Recent Violations of the Brown Act
Summary: The City
Council, in sending a delegation to visit with Federal Economic Agency
representatives in Seattle, did not violate the Brown Act, as the inclusion of
two members of the City Council did not qualify the delegation as a “meeting”
of the local legislative body subject to open meeting requirements. In order to provide for an official approval
of trip expenditures and to “cure” any potential violations, the City Council,
at its meeting of January 17th, 2006, will consider the adoption of
a Resolution approving the trip budget and “curing” potential Brown Act deficiencies
as provided for by state law.
San Benito County District Attorney John Sarsfield has recently initiated a preliminary investigation into potential violations of the Brown Act by members of the San Juan Bautista City Council. The investigation relates to City Council actions with respect to a City delegation that visited Federal Economic Development Agency (“EDA”) staff in Seattle in December of 2005 in order to provide a status report with respect to the progress that the City has made in moving forward with its water infrastructure improvement project. Specifically, the allegations under investigation are that the City Council may have conducted a “serial meeting” without proper notice and agenda as required by the Brown Act. The following discussion reflects this office’s analysis of the alleged violations, and additionally outlines steps that the City will take to address the perceived violations.
It is my understanding that in November of 2005, Mayor Dan Reed directed staff to explore the possibility of sending a delegation of City staff to Seattle, including two Council Members, City Manager Jennifer Coile, and Water Project Manager and consultant Mark Davis, in order to provide EDA officials with an update as to the status of the water system infrastructure improvement project, particularly with respect to financing commitments and preparation of a project implementation schedule. The purpose of the meeting was to be purely informational, and no action or decisional items were contemplated. Due to health concerns, Mayor Reed elected not to participate in the trip, and asked that Council Member Arturo Medina attend in his stead.
Similar City Council delegations of California Cities routinely meet with other state and federal public agencies. Under section 54952.2(a) of the California Government Code, such delegations do not require public notice and placement on an agenda unless the collective gathering constitutes a congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body. Here, because the delegation included only two members of the City Council, the delegation did not comprise a “meeting” for purposes of the Brown Act.
The Brown Act further prohibits “serial meetings” of a majority of the legislative body, a “daisy-chain” series of contacts that allows a quorum of members of the body to reach a collective concurrence on an action item to be taken by the legislative body. We note, however, that the inclusion of the third member was not in the interest of developing a “collective concurrence,” but rather as a means to provide for a suitable replacement Council member for the delegation. Again, the Seattle delegation was not directed to take any specific action, or to bind the City to any particular course of action, but rather to provide EDA representatives with an informational update as to project status.
The City is firmly committed to full compliance with the Brown Act and transparency in the operations of local government, and in restoring the public’s confidence in unfettered access to the conduct of government business. To this end, I have advised the City Council to undertake the following steps. These actions are intended to address the concerns raised by the District Attorney, provide a full and public account of the Seattle delegation, and also formally “cure” any alleged violations as provided for by California Government Code section 54960.1.
Water Project Manager Mark Davis, working in conjunction with City Manager Coile, will prepare a memorandum to the City Council, to be included as a non-privileged and public document as a part of the City Council packet for the January 17th, 2006 City Council meeting. Copies of this memorandum will be available to members of the public at the City Hall counter, and also via written or verbal request as provided under the California Public Records Act. A copy of the memorandum will also be provided to interested members of the press. The memorandum will provide a full account of the history and funding of the trip to Seattle, and will include a brief discussion of the purpose behind the trip and the substance of the presentation made to EDA representatives. In conjunction with the memorandum, the Council will vote on an action item for the adoption of a Resolution both a) approving and ratifying the trip expenditures, and 2) formally curing any alleged Brown Act violations.
Contact: Interim San Juan Bautista City Attorney Peter
Spoerl, (510) 808-2000