Brown Act breach a major miscue
When a quorum of supervisors attended interviews for the open
public works director position two weeks ago, it was a major miscue
by an array of county officials who clearly know better.
From day one on the job, supervisors are instructed on the core
principles of the Brown Act, its primary provision disallowing
board members from communicating in a quorum on any county matters
outside of meetings noticed to the public. They are told to be
careful in casual settings beyond the walls of meeting rooms. They
have been through the drill over and over.
Brown Act breach a major miscue
When a quorum of supervisors attended interviews for the open public works director position two weeks ago, it was a major miscue by an array of county officials who clearly know better.
From day one on the job, supervisors are instructed on the core principles of the Brown Act, its primary provision disallowing board members from communicating in a quorum on any county matters outside of meetings noticed to the public. They are told to be careful in casual settings beyond the walls of meeting rooms. They have been through the drill over and over.
As confirmed by Supervisor Margie Barrios, their gathering was planned beforehand. That means each of them had ample time to consider whether it was appropriate to get in the same room with fellow supervisors over a county matter, even if they merely had planned to take part in interviews for the department head position.
But if they have to be careful on the street or in the line at McDonald’s, then why did none of the five supervisors or other involved officials point out the obvious while at the County Administration Building? Why did no one hold up a hand when it was clear a quorum of supervisors showed up to the session?
In this case, they were involved with county interviews, which means they participated in a structured format focused on job candidates. Clearly, that kind of setting does not lend itself to deviations among the supervisors into other topics. That, however, is not the point.
This is about public perception more than anything, about trust in elected officials who must continuously abide by these laws for every citizen to get a fair shake, for Democracy as we know it to work, to help prevent corruption.
Board Chairman Anthony Botelho admitted the violation at last week’s meeting. He called the error an “oversight” and contended supervisors were informed of it May 11, four days after the interviews.
He goes on to say the county “takes the Brown Act very seriously and wholeheartedly supports policies behind the Brown Act.”
County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson, however, followed up by minimizing the violation while referring to it as a minor issue when compared with pressing matters such as the budget. In doing so, she also curtailed the authenticity in Botelho’s statement. And she showed at least one top-ranking county official does not, indeed, take the Brown Act “very seriously.”
It is disappointing and curious – as Botelho described in the written statement – that supervisors had to be informed of such an elemental violation, and four days after the fact.
Sometimes leaving behind a trail of doubt can be as damaging, in some eyes, as guilt itself. Sometimes lacking common sense trumps innocence, too.
