San Juan Bautista City Council members may have had positive
intentions at a
”
town hall
”
meeting when they violated the state’s Brown Act on March 12 by
openly discussing non-agendized matters, but the state’s open
meetings law has an important purpose and they have failed to
recognize that in the aftermath of the ordeal.
San Juan Bautista City Council members may have had positive intentions at a “town hall” meeting when they violated the state’s Brown Act on March 12 by openly discussing non-agendized matters, but the state’s open meetings law has an important purpose and they have failed to recognize that in the aftermath of the ordeal.
Council members were in violation of the Brown Act because they openly discussed – among themselves and residents in attendance, along with the city manager and other staff – such ideas as becoming a charter city, installing traffic cameras to deter speeding, and giving businesses a 5 percent break on water bills if they allow public use of their restrooms. Those were just a few of the many topics broached during the 90-minute meeting at the San Juan Community Center.
The whole point of the state’s law is to provide residents with prior knowledge of public meetings. It requires giving notice 72 hours before any scheduled gathering of a quorum. But it also mandates, and this is key, that each agenda include specific topics up for discussion or action.
Prior to the meeting, San Juan officials released a flyer touting the free-flowing exchange. It noted how the town hall would function as an open discussion on topics of interest to residents. Earlier this week, after the meeting took place and following continued questioning by the Free Lance, San Juan released a second agenda document and contended it had been properly posted at three city locations. That separate document, however, was essentially the same announcement as the flyer, besides noting how no action will be taken and nothing will be discussed that is before the council or planning commission.
That is blatantly insufficient. Throughout the Brown Act, it is emphasized that all meetings must include agendas with specific topics up for discussion or action. It is in place to underscore that every citizen should have access to public discourse, whether it involves action now or later. It is also to prevent public officials from making decisions, or moving toward that path, without the entirety of the electorate having the chance to weigh in.
Every San Juan resident deserves opportunities to express their feelings on city issues as they unfold, such as becoming a charter city, or installing speed bumps on a street, or possible cuts to certain departments. And the press has a duty and obligation to ensure that laws are upheld – especially those having to do with public access.
San Juan officials, though, were defiant in their own defense after the Free Lance objected toward the end of the meeting. They used the “town hall” mantra as a shield against any wrongdoing. Some got emotional. Mayor Andy Moore noted how he missed his daughter’s game to be there and hear residents’ concerns. Councilman Tony Boch said everything with the newspaper is always “negative” and finished by saying the on-the-record objection “really cooled” the meeting. City Manager Steve Julian, who had been informed of the Brown Act concerns prior to the meeting, simply said, “You’re wrong” and pointed to the flyer – placed on chairs throughout the room – as an appropriate agenda.
The officials stressed how the city has been holding similar town halls for years and that it was allowed in the municipal code.
The prospect that San Juan officials violated the law for years does not make it OK to continue doing it. A local municipality’s code, meanwhile, does not trump the state law.
It was somewhat ironic that Boch, when proposing to study the idea to become a charter city, emphasized his frustration about the county and state rules always dictating San Juan’s actions. Even if the city does go down that route, of re-designating its status, there would be limits to the level of allowable change. It effectively would allow citizens to define their government structure. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make a huge difference elsewhere. They certainly would have to follow most state regulations, including the Brown Act.
To this point, council members and the city manager have demonstrated a lacking respect for the state’s open meetings law. If they are willing to cross the line with open meetings, it leaves a question where else they are taking discretion with the rules.
