The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/12/1992 BAKERSFIELD Patricia M. Smith, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Lynn Edwards Staff: Tmdy Slater Larry Lunardini AGENDA LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 12, 1992 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Council Procedures - Substitute/Subsidiary Motions 2. Review SB 1538 (Brown Act) 3. Legislative Update SB 1435 (Transportation) Others 4. Set Next Meeting .' ...... ":':.-'- MEMORANDUM March 17, 1992 TO: LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: LOUISE T. CLOSS, ASSISTANT CITY ATTOKNEY ~ SUBJECT: EXTEN~IVEREVISI'ONS TO BROWN ACT - S.B. 1538 Please see a copy of the attached Senate Bill. Senate'Bill 1538 (Kopp) proposes several revisions to the Brown Act that would, I belive, seriously impede the City Council's ability to conduct business. Interestingly enough, the current provisions of the Brown Act do not apply to the Legislature, nor would they under S.B. 1538. Attachment LTC:gp LEGISLATIVE ACTIVI'r[~;S - I. OPPOSE' Brown Act, SB 1538 (KovDL Revision Bill Set for Hearing: Wednesday. March 25. Senate Local Government Committee, Senator Kopp's extensive revisions to the Brown Act. SB 1538, has now been set for hearing before the S~nate Local Government Committee on Wednesday, March 25. The bill is sponsored by media associations, including the First Amendment Coalition, which sponsored some of Senator Kopp's previously unsuccessful Brown Act legislation. The 'bill has. generated a number of newspaper editorials around the state accusing the League of California Cities as being a part of 'the secrecy lobby' opposed to the Brown Act. Ironically, the · L~gue of California Cities was one of the sponsors of the Brown Act in 1953. The Senate needs a t'riendiy reminder that city business has been done openly and honestly in compliance with the Brown Act for nearly four decades. The provisions of the Brown Act do not apply now to the Legislature, nor would they under SB 1538. In fact, while the Legislature has applied some limited 'Brown Act- like' provisions to state agencies, the Legislature itself remains exempt. The Legislature continues to meet in private during legislative caucus meetings, as well as in a variety of subcommittee meetings such as the recent Budget Realignment Subcommittees. City officials should begin reviewing SB 25~$ in order to inform the Senate Local Government members how the bill would effect their specific policy development practices. A brief analysis of some of the bill's many provisions follows. ~ expand the Brown Act to include nonprofit agencies which are financially supported by or created by local government. _ Section 3 revises the "official calaacity" recluiremenu to apply the Brown Act to even private bodies exercising authority delegated by a local government. ~ revises 'the less than ,a quorum' exceptions to apply to permanent standing committees containing less than a quorum of the local government membership. ~ction 9 prohibits city council members, planning commissioners and other permanent board members from attending social or ceremonial occasions sponsored by the city. Section 12 Iarevents city officials as a body from attending retreats, lectures, or training sessions outside of their city. ~ Sect/on 13 requires detailed.descriptions on agendas. The bill provides an incomprehensible standard for adequacy of notice. Any failure to meet the standard, even unknowing and unintentional failures would subject council members to misdemeanor penalties. ~ requires a fixed format in describing speCific factual disclosures relative to all closed sessions. · Section 16 limits the protection for closed session 'to discuss pending litigation and potential significant exposure to litigation. Essentially this provision would destroy much of the existing attorney-client privilege provisions of the Brown Act and jeopardize a council's ability to disagree with the advice of their attorney on important policy matters. ~ requires specific disclosures of actions taken in closed seSSion immediately thereafter, including decisions to prosecute. This section also applies to decisions about labor negotiations and tort liability. ~' requires tape recording of all closed sessions, turning the tapes over to the District Attorney immediately, and subjecting the tapes to inspection by the district attorney, the grand jury, or a superior court. ~ requires immediate access to any documents given by any person in connection with a public meeting, even if the documents are not distributed. In addition, cities would be limited to charging five cents per page for copying charges. Section 23 finds anyone who violates specified provisions of the Brown Act to be liable'even for unknowing or unintentional acts, as well as actions based on the advice of counsel. ~ection 24 provides that where certain actions which violated the Brown Act are not discovered within 30 days, the decision makers may not address the same issue in subsequent action. That's right, if action is taken on a noise ordinance and a technical violation of the Brown-Act is involved, the council may not subsequently cure the Brown Act defect and adopt a noise ordinance. Section 25 requires the award of attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs in successful Brown Act litigation whether or not the violation is unintentional or inconsequential. There are many issues which will need to be further analyzed and discussed in developing a response to Senator Kopp's unwarranted Brown Act amendments. League staff appreciates your input to us and to the Legislature. Please send your comments and analysis to the League's Sacramento office, to Senator Kopp, and members of the Senate Local Government Committee, who are: Ber~eson (Chair), Ayala (Vice Chair), Calderon, Craven, Cecil Green, Hill, Kopp, Russell, and Thompson. Copies of the bill'are available on CITYLINK or by calling the Capitol Bill Room at 916/445-2323. (Referred to previously in Bulletin ~7-1992, 9-1992.) 6/11/92 Letters to Assemblymen, Senators, and Elected Leaders: 6-3-92 Support for AB 3406 (Enterprize Zones) 6-12-92 Stop raiding cities 7-9-92 'Support Governor's proposed amendments to SB 1364 7-14-92 Oppose ACA ;I 2 7-14-92 Oppose SB 161 (LAFCO and urban phasing) 8-4-92 Oppose SB 1538 and AB 3476 8-4-92 Oppose SB 1977 8-11-92 Oppose SB 844, SB 617 and AB 3213 (trailer budget bills) Responses/Letters from Assemblymen, Senators, and Elected Leaders: 7-7-92 'Costa Supports local revenue raising and state mandate reductions 7-9-92 Harvey He voted for AB 3408 on Assembly floor. 7-13-92 Rogers SB 1364 keeps changing. 7-13-92 Wyman Opposed to tax shifts. 7-15-92 Harvey Opposed to $2.8B from cities and counties w/o relief. .7-15-92 Rogers Frustrated at State's attempt to offset its deficit through local government revenues. 7-22-92 Rogers Voted against SB 161'. Will remember opposition to ACA 12. 7-29-92 Costa Thanks for letter on Governor's proposal; will keep views in mind. 7-30-92 Wilson Thanks for sharing your views on pending legislation. 8-3-92 Rogers Thanks for keeping him informed. He voted against SB 1866 (Delta Protection Plan). (m0811922) AUG:? I@g2 ~u~ust lO, 199~ CITYNANAGE~'$ OFFiC~ City of Bakersfield J. Dale Hawley, City Manager City Hall 1501Truxton Ave Bakersfield, Ca 93301 Dear Mr. Hawley: As cities around the State await the outcome of the State's Budget impasse, perhaps many of them , like Avenal, are already severely impacted without any budget yet approved. The City of Avenal receives 30% of its General Fund revenues from Vehicle Licenses Fees. The State Controller's Office is not paying these monies to cities until the budget is adopted. In the mean time, we must utilize our reserves (which are limited) to meet our budget, or implement new taxes, or begin eliminating services. In any case, our community is sufferin~ - before we even know what "real" funding cuts we will ~ace when the budget is adopted. The Avenal City Council is seeking interest by the cities in our division to join to~ether in a legal action against the State of California to resolve our problems. This action may be to require the State of California to approve a budget as is constitutionally required, or to fight a~ainst any taking of Vehicle License Fees or- property taxes, etc. from cities. Obviously, such an undertakin~ is unrealistic.for Avenal to fund alone, but if other cities in our division, the valley, .or the state are also interested, we may jointly be able to get a message to our State Governor and legislature that they must either live up to their obligations or change them - but they must do it NOW. Please let us know if your city would be interested in such an undertaking, and if enOugh~interest is generated perhaps this issue should be addressed and discussed in a ~eneral meetin~ forum to determine what approaches we can pursue collectively. Sincerely, CITY OF AVENAL William J. Malinen City Manager WJM:can cc: City Council Bob Hansen, President SSJVD-LCC