RETHINKING LA - LA City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Waste Reduction and Recycling stands accused of violating the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, by introducing new motions during a meeting and then acting on them.
Angelenos for a Clean Environment mounted a protest and their legal representatives tendered a “demand for cure”, claiming that the Brown Act requires all motions and actions to be properly agendized so that the public is informed in advance of the meeting of the proposed items.
This is where it gets sticky.
California’s Brown Act clearly states, in its preamble, “Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.”
At first glance, the Ad Hoc Committee’s alleged actions would seem to be a simple violation of the Brown Act which requires that all actions be agendized and publicized so that the public can participate in the process.
But the Brown Act provides an exemption for “less-than-quorum advisory committees, other than standing committees.” In other words, Ad Hoc Committees aren’t covered by the Brown Act.
This situation and the subsequent City Attorney investigation both raise a few questions that come up as a result of the Ad Hoc Committee’s actions regarding LA’s Franchise Waste Management Agreement.
First, why would the City of LA continue to utilize Ad Hoc Committees instead of demonstrating a commitment to open and transparent governance by forming Standing Committees that operate in compliance with the Brown Act?
The use of Ad Hoc Committees is an old strategy for side-stepping the Brown Act, a 59 year-old state law that was originally written to prevent informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials.
It would seem that the City of LA’s commitment to public participation would result in a City Council policy of conducting the people’s business in standing committees to avoid any controversy or appearance of an attempt to avoid public scrutiny.
It wasn’t too long ago that the City of LA spent significant time debating this same issue when CM Rosendahl challenged CM Perry’s Ad Hoc Committee on Farmers Field to conduct its business in the public arena instead of behind closed doors.
Second, why is Waste Reduction and Recycling given the tepid attention of an Ad Hoc Committee? Ad Hoc Committees are formed to address a specific task or situation and are typically of finite lifespan, literally temporary committees of limited scope of work.
One would think that LA’s commitment to Waste Reduction and Recycling would be worthy of a Standing Committee, one that meets regularly and with a long term vision for creating and supporting a sustainable future for Los Angeles.
But that duplicates the responsibilities of the City Council’s Energy and Environment Committee, a Standing Committee covered by the Brown Act.
So perhaps the Waste Reduction and Recycling Committee was acting appropriately when it convened a meeting and then proceeded to act, even if it wasn’t following the process that would apply to the Energy and Environment Committee.
Except, three members of the Ad Hoc Committee are also members of the Standing Committee which means that when they sit on the Waste Reduction and Recycling Committee, they also qualify as a quorum for the Energy and Environment Committee.
Now is when the time clocks start ticking as legal experts get to debate which committee is actually acting when a quorum of an Ad Hoc Committee and a quorum of a Standing Committee are made up of the same people. Who’s in charge and who has authority and are they covered by the Brown Act?
The final question that comes up in this Brown Act brouhaha is in response to the report that the City Attorney will be investigating the alleged Brown Act violations. Why is the City Attorney investigating this situation instead of the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division?
The City Attorney is responsible for its client, in this case the City Councilmembers who sit on the Ad Hoc Committee and the Standing Committee. The City Attorney is responsible for advising the client, not pursuing charges that the client violated state law.
Just recently, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors was taken to court over allegations of Brown Act violations by Californians Aware, resulting in an admission of guilt from the Supervisors and a payment of $14,750 in legal fees in order to settle the lawsuit.
It was the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division that investigated and it was the Supervisors refusal to comply with the “demand for cure” from Californians Aware that started the legal clock ticking, resulting in the responsibility for the legal fees for Californians Aware.
The City of LA could resolve the current charges of Brown Act violation by agendizing the items that are in contention and inviting the public to participate in the process of addressing the business of the people.
Further, the City of LA could avoid future allegations of Brown Act violations by rejecting Ad Hoc Committee exemptions from the Brown Act and simply complying whether or not it’s required. After all, it’s simply good policy to conduct all business openly and transparently.
Third, the people of LA need to remember that the City Attorney has a client and that client is the City of Los Angeles, including the Mayor, the City Council, and the many Committees and Commissions that engage in the people’s business. Brown Act “demands for cure” go to the offending party and legal representation while charges of a Brown Act violation go to the District Attorney.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected]. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.) –cw
Tags: Brown Act, Ad Hoc Committee, Standing Committee, City Hall, City Council, Los Angeles, Stephen Box, Rethinking LA
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 35
Pub: May 1, 2012
