Team Sutter – No Violation But Let’s Fix It Anyway
I was reading the Robert LaHue blog at the Appeal Democrat (Sutter County). Mr. LaHue provided me with a needed chuckle in his To Brown or not to Brown, part 2 post.
California has a law commonly called the Brown Act. When it comes to conducting meetings of elected officials (boards of supervisors, city councils, special districts) the Brown Act is the authority. The Brown Act says if you put it on the agenda, even closed session, they (citizens) will come and they have a right to express their opinion.
In my post – It Is The Brown Act -Team Sutter Does Not Trump The Law – I noted it appeared that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors failed to follow this simple rule.
Mr. LaHue went to a qualified source, an attorney with years of experience in the matter
Ewert called me back later that day and said in his opinion, by not taking comment prior to a vote on an item, there was a Brown Act violation.
Mr. LaHue received a different interpretation from the County CAO
I already had a call in to Combs and he called me back later that night. I asked him about any possible Brown Act violation and he said there wasn’t one because the board is only required to take public comment before a vote on an agenda item if it is a public hearing. The committee vote was only an appearance item.
What in the world is “an appearance item”? Maybe this has something to do with the Board Committee system. Maybe County Counsel and CAO just don’t want the public to have their say. Hey, you don’t have to like what the public says but you have to let the public have their say.
Mr. Ewert, the attorney states and LaHue concludes
I don’t understand the CAO’s explanation. If the Board agendized an item for action, the Brown Act requires that the public have an opportunity to address the Board on that item before the Board votes on it.
So that’s where it all stands right now. Combs and Ewert are of differing opinions.
And so it goes with “Team Sutterâ€.
The end result is that the Board did the right thing and did another vote to set the record straight. The outcome was the same but they followed the rules in doing so.
Team LCCD trumped the law. They managed to sell their surplus land without naming the proposed buyers negotiators by “person” i.e. by name in open session. They only referenced a DBK corp. Who are DBK’s negotiators? The voter still doesn’t know. This was a clear Brown Act violation. Team Sutter sucks. They should consult with Team LCCD on how to get around the Brown Act.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pmSo, what else is rotten in Denmark or whatever?
April 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am