Supes cop to meeting illegallly for interviews
Board Chairman Anthony Botelho at Tuesday’s meeting admitted
that supervisors met illegally when they sat in on interviews for
the vacant public works director position Thursday.
Prior to reading a written explanation, Botelho had this to
say:
”
It won’t happen again.
”
Supes cop to meeting illegallly for interviews
Board Chairman Anthony Botelho at Tuesday’s meeting admitted that supervisors met illegally when they sat in on interviews for the vacant public works director position Thursday.
Prior to reading a written explanation, Botelho had this to say: “It won’t happen again.”
It is unclear how it came to supervisors’ attention they had violated the state’s open meetings law – which requires the county to post an agenda for any gathering of a quorum of a government body.
Supervisor Margie Barrios said that it wasn’t a private party that notified the board of the violation.
“It wasn’t like anybody called and said you didn’t post this,” she said. “(Citizens) have a right to know about this, and I’m hoping this will never happen again.”
Botelho said the interview was the only thing discussed at the meeting and added that “the board wanted to have some sort of role in the hiring of the new director.”
“We decided that we’ll get the supervisors, the county administrative officer and our consultant (Bob Murray) to sit in on the interview.”
This meeting was pre-planned, according to Barrios. “We missed posting it, and it needs to be properly posted.”
County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson said the board has the authority to appoint department heads or allow her to appoint them. However, Thompson admitted there was “an error made.”
“The Brown Act was violated, and the board didn’t take any action.”
Thompson added that this was a minor issue compared with the current budget matters facing the county.
However, California Newspaper Publishers Association Legal Counsel Jim Ewert disagreed with that statement.
“The problem is that no one knows. She is asking the public to take their word for it,” he said. “From our perspective, it’s anything but a minor violation.”
Ewert went on to say: “I have to say kudos to them for identifying this and trying to remedy the situation,” but he added that “by labeling this a minor issue, it minimizes the action by the board to correct the action.”
Botelho recited the following statement at Tuesday’s meeting:
“It has come to the board’s attention that there was a violation of the Brown Act and that members of the board of supervisors were involved in the interview of candidates for public works director on May 7. This meeting was not a public meeting of the board of supervisors. When this error was first realized yesterday, a determination was made that the error should be disclosed to the public.
“The county takes the Brown Act very seriously and wholeheartedly supports policies behind the Brown Act – specifically, the deliberations of public government should be conducted openly. It is only when an item falls within the narrowly construed statutory exemption of the Brown Act that the board can meet in closed session. Even those circumstances the matter must be agendized.
“While there was no formal or final action by the board, the board should have not met in a group to consider candidates for that position. The error was an oversight and the county will be vigilant in the future to ensure that such a mistake will not be repeated.”
In terms of legal ramifications from violating the Brown Act, “there is a remedy,” according to Ewert. If someone were to challenge a board’s action under the Brown Act, that person would need to send a letter to the board to correct the action. If that was unsatisfactory to the person filing it, he or she could file a grievance with a superior court.
“The court could require the supes to issue proper notices and in some instances, be required to record the closed sessions,” Ewert said. However, in this particular instance, the board has corrected its actions.
If violating the Brown Act was to become a common practice by the board, Ewert said, “This would be a different story.”
Botelho said he takes full responsibility of the violation. “I should have known better.”
“I felt that you make a mistake, you owe up to it. That’s why I felt it important to share the oversight on Tuesday and hopefully we’ll just move on and learn from that.”
