DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

KELLI L. SAGER (State Bar No. 120162)

ALONZO WICKERS IV (State Bar No. 169454)

SUSAN E. SEAGER (State Bar No. 204824)

865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400

Los Angeles, California 90017-2566

Telephone (213) 633-6800

Fax (213) 633-6899

 

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

KARLENE GOLLER (State Bar No. 147065)

202 West First Street

Los Angeles, California 90012

Telephone (213) 237-3760

Fax (213) 237-3810

 

Attorneys for Petitioners

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
dba LOS ANGELES TIMES and

RICHARD P. MCKEE

 

superior COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 

los angeles times communications, llc,

and Richard p. mckee,

 

 

                                          Petitioners,

 

            vs.

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, a legislative body,

 

                                          Respondent.

)))))))))))) ) ) ))

Case No. _____________________

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDATE DIRECTED TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT; DECLARATION OF SUSAN E. SEAGER WITH EXHIBITS A TO CC-1; DECLARATION OF RICHARD P. MCKEE WITH EXHIBIT DD

 

[Cal. Govıt Code § 54950, et seq.]

 

Petitioners Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, dba Los Angeles Times (³The Times²) and Richard P. McKee (collectively ³Petitioners²) petition this Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1060 and 1085 et seq. and California Government Code §§ 54960 et seq. (the Ralph M. Brown Act), for:

(1)      a declaratory judgment that Respondent Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (³the Board²) has violated the Brown Act as described in this Petition;

(2)      a writ of mandate commanding the Board to refrain from future violations of the Brown Act, to release all Board documents used in connection with closed sessions that the Court determines should have been held in open session, and to maintain written minutes, videotapes, and audiotapes of all future closed session meetings; and

(3)      an injunction prohibiting the Board from using its deputies or other County staff members as intermediaries to conduct meetings or serial meetings in violation of the Brown Act.[1]

In this verified Petition, Petitioners allege as follows:

1.                           Respondent Los Angeles County is a ³local agency² of the State of California as defined by Government Code § 54951.[2] 

2.                           The County is governed by an elected, five-member Board of Supervisors, which is defined by Section 54952 as a ³legislative body² of the County.  The Board regularly meets on Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m.  Currently, the five Board Supervisors are Zev Yaroslavsky, who is chairman, Gloria Molina, Michael D. Antonovich, Don Knabe and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

3.                           The Times is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which is authorized to do business and is doing business in the County of Los Angeles as the Los Angeles Times.  Among other things, at all times relevant to the Petition, The Times has been engaged in the business of gathering and disseminating information to the public, including information about legislative bodies and the workings of government, through its publication of the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper of general circulation distributed in Los Angeles County and across California.  As such, The Times is ³an interested person,² as defined by Section 54960, authorized to commence an action for mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief to enforce the Boardıs faithful performance of its legal duties under the Brown Act and to prevent future violations. 

4.                           Richard P. McKee is an individual registered voter residing in the City of La Verne, in the County of Los Angeles, and is President of the California First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the enforcement of the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.  (Declaration of Richard M. McKee at ĥ 1.)  As such, Mr. McKee is ³an interested person,² as defined by Section 54960, authorized to commence an action for mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief to enforce the Boardıs faithful performance of its legal duties under the Brown Act and to prevent future violations. 

5.                           It is only through the recent inadvertent disclosure of secret Board documents that Petitioners have obtained evidence that the Board repeatedly violated the Brown Act to develop political strategies.  These documents reveal that the Board met in closed session labeled on the agenda as ³pending litigation² to discuss how to derail a ballot initiative intended to increase the pay for County home health care aids.  Without any public notice or debate, the Board secretly instructed County Counsel to refuse to submit a ballot title and summary for the initiative to the County Registrar in order to prevent the proposed initiative from going to voters. 

6.                           The following day, the County Counsel called three of the Board members to advise them that he could not follow the Boardıs instructions because he had determined that submitting the ballot title and summary was a nondiscretionary ministerial act.  In the weeks and months following, the Board has held illegal secret sessions to discuss the potential political fallout of its attempt to derail the initiative.  The public was completely in the dark about these secret votes and strategy sessions until the Executive Officer of the Board accidentally released minutes of one closed sessions and other related records revealing some of the Boardıs true discussions and acts, which were in violation of the Brown Act.

7.                           After the Boardıs recent Brown Act violations were revealed, more evidence has come to light revealing that the Board has engaged in a pattern of violating the Brown Act for many years by using Board deputies, the County Administrator and other intermediaries to hold unannounced, nonpublic meetings and serial meetings to discuss and vote on the publicıs business. 

 

 

 

 

The Boardıs December 18, 2001 Meeting

The Boardıs Secret Vote to Violate The Elections Code

8.                           On December 18, 2001, the Board held a nonpublic meeting in which it discussed and ultimately voted to intentionally violate a state election law.  The Brown Act requires such meetings and votes to be held in public.  The meeting took place as follows:

9.                           The Board met on December 18, 2001, in closed session,[3] ostensibly to discuss several agenda items, including agenda item CS‑5.  The Boardıs publicly posted agenda described item CS-5 as ³Conference with Legal Counsel ­ Anticipated Litigation.  Initiation of litigation, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 4956.9 (one case).²  (Exhibit C; Exhibit E at 3-4.)  

10.                     Executive Officer Violet Varona-Lukens took minutes of the Boardıs discussions.  (Exhibit E at 2.)  Los Angeles County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman ³briefed² the Board on the In-Home Supportive Services Initiative (IHSS), a proposed ballot initiative that would increase the pay of the countyıs home health care workers.  (Exhibit E at 2, Exhibit B at 1.)  Mr. Pellman also advised the Board that the law firm of OıMelveny & Meyers had researched whether the Board  could file a successful legal challenge to the ballot measure before it was placed on the ballot.  (Exhibit E at 2; Exhibits B, D.)  Mr. Pellman told the Board that he had ³concluded that a [legal] challenge² to the proposed ballot measure by the County ³would be a certain loss.²  (Exhibit H at 3-4.)  ³[F]or both legal and practical reasons,² Mr. Pellman ³did not solicit support [from the Board] for . . . a lawsuit² to challenge the legality of the ballot initiative prior to the election.  (Exhibit H at 3‑4.) 

11.                     Instead of discussing whether the County should initiate litigation, Mr. Pellman suggested that the Board instruct him to intentionally violate the Elections Code by refusing to submit a ballot title and summary for the proposed ballot measure to the Registrar of Voters, as required by Elections Code § 9105(a).  (Exhibit H at 4; Exhibit B at 1.)  Under Mr. Pellmanıs plan, ³I [would] not provide a title and summary in an effort to force the proponents to sue me.  I raised this as an idea that the proponents would bring an action in mandamus, i.e., seeking the court to order me to prepare the title and summary.²  (Exhibit H at 4.)  Supervisor Molina later explained in a memo that the Board fully embraced Mr. Pellmanıs plan.  The Board ³voted to proceed forward on the IHSS ballot initiative by directing Counsel not to prepare the ballot title and summary . . . with the express knowledge that such action would likely elicit a lawsuit.²  (Exhibit I at 1; emphasis in original.)  The Board took the following ³Action²:  ³With Chairman Yaroslavsky expressing opposition, the County Counsel was instructed to send a letter to the proponents of the IHSS advising them that the County would not place the IHSS measure on the ballot.  This action should force the proponents attorney to file an action against the County.²  (Exhibit E at 2.) 

12.                     The Boardıs discussion about intentionally violating the Elections Code was not listed on the Boardıs agenda for closed or open session.  (Exhibits A, C.) 

13.                     The Boardıs vote to instruct Mr. Pellman to intentionally violate the Elections Code was not reflected in the Boardıs ³Statement of Proceedings² for the December 18 meeting.  (Exhibit F.)

The Boardıs December 19, 2001 Meeting

The Boardıs Secret Serial Telephone meeting

14.                     On December 19, 2001, a majority of the Board held a nonpublic, non-noticed serial telephone meeting to rescind its previous vote to violate the Elections Code.  This meeting should have been open to the public.  The meeting took place as follows:

15.                     On December 19, Mr. Pellman decided that intentionally violating the Elections Code was ³without a sound legal basis,² and would be viewed ³unfavorably² by the courts.  (Exhibit H at 4.)  Mr. Pellman also realized that the Boardıs December 18 vote instructing him to violate the Elections Code would present ³a valid basis for a lawsuit not only against me but likely the Board of Supervisors based on the violations of the civil rights of the proponents under both the State and Federal constitutions.²  (Id. at 4‑5.)  Mr. Pellman telephoned Board Chairman Yaroslavsky and ³proceeded to contact each of the Supervisorsı offices to discuss the substantial risk of civil rights litigation against the Board of Supervisors.²  (Id. at 4.)  Mr. Pellman concluded that, ³based on these [telephone] conferences, there was not substantial support² from a majority of the Board for violating the Elections Code.  (Id.)  Consequently, Mr. Pellman submitted the title and summary to the Registrar as required by law on December 19, 2001.  (Exhibit H at 5; Exhibit I at 1; Exhibit G.)  Three Supervisors or their representatives spoke by telephone with Mr. Pellman; Supervisor Molina and one other Board member did not participate in the telephone calls with Mr. Pellman.  (Exhibit I at 1.)

16.                     There was no public agenda posted for the Boardıs December 19 discussion and vote, nor any finding of the necessary circumstances to permit a special or emergency meeting.

The Boardıs January 4 and January 8, 2002 Meetings

The Boardıs Discussion of the Brown Act in Closed Session

17.                     On January 4, the Board held an ³adjourned² meeting in closed session, ostensibly ³to confer with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation (one case), pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 and to consider Department Head performance evaluation, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.²  (Exhibit T.) 

18.                     On January 3, 2002, Supervisor Molina wrote a confidential memo to the other four Board members thanking the members for agreeing to meet in closed session on January 4 to discuss Mr. Pellmanıs December 19 telephone calls to the Board about the ballot initiative.  (Exhibit I at 1.)  Supervisor Molina stated that the three Board membersı participation in the December 19 phone calls with Mr. Pellman was ³a violation of the Brown Act² that exposed those Board members ³to sanctions under the Brown Act.²  (Id.)  Supervisor Molina informed the Board she intended to bring to the closed session Diane Karpman, ³an attorney who specializes in legal ethics whom I have hired to assist me with this difficult matter.²  (Id. at 2.) 

19.                     On January 4, 2002, Supervisor Molina wrote another confidential memo to Board members to defend her proposal to bring her private attorney, Ms. Karpman, to the closed session later that day.  (Exhibit J at 1.)  Supervisor Molina wrote a note on the top of the memo to Yaroslavsky stating:  ³Zev, I understand you have concerns.  I would be happy to discuss this in close[d] session before asking Ms. Karpman to join us.  Gloria.²  (Id.) 

20.                     On January 8, 2002, the Board met in closed session, ostensibly to discuss agenda item CS‑4, described as ³Department Head Performance Evaluation.  Consider Department Head Performance evaluation, pursuant to Government Code § 54950.²  (Exhibit L at 1.)  The Board also met in closed session to discuss agenda item, 92‑C, described as ³Recommendation as submitted by Supervisor Molina: Report by the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel on duties of government attorneys in legal representation.²  (Exhibit L at 2; Exhibit R.) 

21.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that during its closed session meetings on January 4 and January 8 the Board held political strategy sessions about the ballot initiative, and discussed whether Mr. Pellman should have ignored his ministerial duties regarding the ballot summary and title, whether Mr. Pellman or the Board violated the Brown Act.

22.                     The agendas for the Boardıs January 4 and January 8 meetings did not list these topics as items for discussion in open or closed session.

The Boardıs misuse of ³Department head evalution²

as a closed session agenda item

23.                     The Board routinely lists ³Department Head performance evaluation² as a closed session agenda item.  The Brown Act requires that such an agenda item should specify the title of the department head being reviewed.  The Board has listed ³Department Head performance evaluation² as an agenda item without providing the title of the department head as follows:

24.                     On January 4, 2002, the Board met in closed session to consider an agenda item described as ³Department Head performance evaluation,² without providing the specific title of the department head in the public agenda.  (Exhibit K at 1.)

25.                     On January 8, 2002, the Board met in closed session to consider agenda item CS-4, described as ³Department Head performance evaluation,² again without providing the specific title of the department head in the public agenda.  (Exhibit L.)

26.                     On March 12, 2002, the met in closed session to consider agenda item CS‑4, described as ³Department Head performance evaluations,² again without providing the specific title of the department heads in the public agenda.  (Exhibit U.)

 

The Board uses its health deputies as a ³shadow board² 

27.                     For many years, the Board has been using its Health Deputies to act as the Boardıs personal intermediaries to hold nonpublic, non-noticed meetings to discuss items of business that are scheduled for approval on the Boardıs agenda.  These items of business include important public health issues and multimillion-dollar budget items.  The Brown Act describes a ³meeting² as a congregation of a majority of a legislative body ³to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.²  Section 54952.2.  The Board violates the Brown Act by using its Health Deputies as Board surrogates to ³hear, discuss or deliberate² public health issues that are within the Boardıs subject matter jurisdiction.

28.                     The Brown Act requires such meetings to be held in public.  The meetings take place as follows:

29.                     On March 28, 1994, the County Counselıs office wrote a memo to County Health Services Director Robert C. Gates about the weekly meetings by the Boardıs Health Deputies.  (Exhibit W.)  Assistant County Counsel Roberta M. Fesler stated that the 1994 amendments to the Brown Act extended its scope to include a wider group of meetings.  (Id.)  The Fesler memo stated that the Brown Act ³prohibits the use of personal intermediaries that are employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to reach a consensus.²  (Id.)  The Fesler memo also stated that the ³Legislature made it clear that mere Œdiscussionsı of an item that is not included on a posted agenda is prohibited by the Brown Act.²  (Id.)  Because of those amendments, the Fesler memo concluded that the Health Deputy meetings ³should be treated as meetings of an advisory committee subject to the provision of the Brown Act,² which requires the posting of agendas and holding of public meetings.  (Id.)  The Fesler memo warned that any Health Deputy meetings that failed to adhere to the Brown Act requirements ³could be deemed by the court to constitute illegal meetings, via the use of intermediaries of the members of the Board.²  (Id.)

30.                     On May 17, 1995, the County Counselıs office wrote a memo that directly contradicted its 1994 memo.  Senior Assistant County Counsel Raymond G. Forther, Jr. wrote a memo to Supervisor Molina stating that the Brown Act did not apply to the weekly meetings of the Boardıs Health Deputies.  (Exhibit X at 4-5.)   The Forther memo stated that the Brown Act did not cover the staff member meetings because the Board had not created the Health Deputy meetings through ³formal action.²  (Id.)  The memo also stated that the Health Deputies were free to meet privately even when they met ³for the purposes of providing or receiving information or briefings, holding discussions with other county staff or consultants, and the like.²  (Id.)  The memo cautioned, however, that the Board was prohibited from ³causing Board deputies to act as their personal intermediaries to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the Board.²

31.                     On April 17, 2001, County Counsel Pellman wrote a memo to Supervisor Michael Antonovich repeating the advice of the 1995 Forther memo.  (Exhibit X at 1-3.)  The Pellman memo stated that the Health Deputies were ³free to meet privately in any numbers . . . to independently gather facts, receive briefings, and hold discussions with other staff or consultants for their respective Supervisors.²  (Id. at 2.)  The Pellman memo noted that the Health Deputies had been following the Brown Act requirements by posting public agendas and allowing the general public to attend its meetings for ³a number of years,² but that it wasnıt necessary because the Brown Act did not apply to such meetings.  (Id.)

32.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Health Deputies do not currently publicly post agendas for their weekly meetings, and do not currently invite the general public, but rather invite a select group of people to their weekly meetings. 

33.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Health Deputies act as a ³Shadow Board² to gather information, deliberate and develop a collective concurrence about specific items on behalf of the Board, enabling the Board to routinely approve the same items of business less than one week after the Health Deputy meetings.

34.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that Supervisor Molina temporarily ordered her Health Deputy to stop attending the Health Deputy meetings in 2001 because the Deputies were questioning County department heads and making decisions about County health issues.  (Exhibit P.)

35.                      On January 30, 2002, the Boardıs Health Deputies held a meeting to discuss six Department of Health Services topics that were expressly listed as future ³Board Agenda Items² on the Boardıs February 5, 2002 meeting.  (Exhibit Y.)  Petitioners allege on information and belief that during their January 30 meeting, the Health Deputies gathered information and developed a collective concurrence as personal intermediaries of the Board on these six agenda items. 

36.                     On February 5, 2002, the Board considered and voted on the same six agenda items that had been listed on the Health Deputiesı January 30 agenda.  (Exhibit Z.)  The Board approved five of the six items.  (Exhibit Z.)  For example, agenda item No. 5 on the Health Deputies January 30 agenda was listed as agenda item No. 21 on the Boardıs February 5 agenda.  (Compare Exhibit Y with Exhibit Z at 1.)  The Board voted unanimously to approve the item, which was a $6.78 million funding award from the State Emergency Medical Services Authority to reimburse the Countyıs trauma hospitals for treating indigent patients.  (Exhibit Z at 1.) 

37.                     Similarly, on January 23, 2002, the Health Deputies held a meeting to discuss seven topics that were expressly listed as future ³Board Agenda Items² on the Boardıs January 29, 2002 meeting.  (Exhibit AA.)  Once again, the Board voted on the same seven items that had been listed the previous week on the Health Deputiesı agenda, and approved all but one.  (Exhibit BB.)  One of the approved agenda items was the acceptance of a federal grant for approximately $700,000 for a County HIV/AIDS program, bringing the total grant awarded to the County to $4.75 million.  (Exhibit BB at 3.)  The Health Deputies also met on November 14, 2001, January 9, 2002, and March 27, 2002, to discuss agenda items expressly listed as ³Board Agenda Items² to be considered by the Board the following week.  (Exhibit CC.)

board briefings by county administrator

38.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board has used the County Administrator for many years as an intermediary to hold substantive discussions every Monday to discuss items of business on the Boardıs Tuesday agenda.  (Exhibit P; Exhibit CC-1. )  The Board does not publicly post agendas for these discussions with the County Administrator and the public is excluded from these discussions.  (Id.)  These discussions should be open to the public. 

Petitioners confront the board with Alleged Brown Act Violations

39.                     Thus far, the Boardıs only official action has been to tighten the secrecy of its closed sessions.  On February 5, 2002, the Board voted to approve new ³Closed Sessions Procedures.²  (Exhibit Q at 4.)  The procedures prohibit the Executive Officer from taking minutes of closed sessions discussions, a retreat from the Boardıs long-standing policy of taking minutes of its closed session discussions.  (Id.)  The Boardıs new guidelines also expressly prohibit the audiotaping or videotaping of the Boardıs closed sessions.  (Id.)

40.                     On February 20, 2002, The Times, through its Staff Writer Evelyn Larrubia, wrote a letter to Supervisor Yaroslavsky identifying the Boardıs alleged Brown Act violations on December 18, 2001, January 4, 2002, and January 8, 2002.  (Exhibit N.)  The Times alleged that the Board violated the Act on those dates by meeting in closed session to discuss whether to violate the Elections Code and to discuss a report prepared by the Chief Administrator and County Counsel on the duties of government attorneys in legal representation, topics not on the agenda and not permitted by statute in closed session.  (Exhibit N.)  The Timesıs letter requested that the Board release all documents in its possession related to the action taken, and the positions taken by each Supervisor and their stated reasons.  (Id.) 

41.                     On or about March 13, 2002, The Times received a letter from Mr. Pellman stating that he concluded that the Board did not violate the Brown Act.  Mr. Pellman further stated that no action was taken by the Board to cure or correct the Boardıs actions.  (Exhibit V.)

42.                     On March 18, 2002, Mr. McKee wrote and delivered a letter to the Board alleging various Brown Act violations by the Board, including those on December 18, 2001, December 19, 2001, and March 12, 2002.  (Exhibit DD at 1-2.) 

43.                     On February 20, 2002, The Times, through Ms. Larrubia, wrote a letter to Supervisor Molina seeking access under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.) to ³[c]orrespondence distributed by your office to the other board offices in December and January regarding the Homecare Protection Act of 2002 and Bill Pellmanıs duties and actions relating to that proposed initiative.²  (Exhibit M.)

44.                     On February 28, 2002, Ms. Varona-Lukens wrote a letter to The Times denying the newspaperıs request for documents under the Public Records Act.  Ms. Varona-Lukens stated that the documents were ³exempt from disclosure² pursuant to Government Code §§ 6254(c) and 6254(k).  (Exhibit O.)  However, the requested documents were attached to her letter.

45.                     On or about March 6, 2002, Donovan M. Main, Senior Assistant County Counsel, wrote a letter to The Times stating that Ms. Varona-Lukens ³inadvertently² had attached the documents to her February 28 letter, and asking that The Times return the documents.  (Exhibit S.)  On March 7, 2002, Mr. Pellman sent a similar letter to The Times.  (Id.)  The Times declined to return the documents. 

46.                     The Times has published several articles reporting the Boardıs Brown Act violations described above, including articles published on March 8, 2002, and March 26, 2002.  (Exhibit P.)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

December 18, 2001 meeting

47.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Petition.

48.                     On December 18, 2001, the Board met in closed session, ostensibly to consider the ³initiation of litigation.²  Instead, the Board discussed whether to violate the Elections Code and voted in secret to instruct Mr. Pellman to intentionally violate the Elections Code.  The Boardıs discussion and action did not ³initiate litigation² by the County.  The topic was not listed on the agenda or authorized for closed session discussion.  The Board did not report its vote in public session.

49.                     By doing so, the Board violated the following sections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54956, which requires that ³[n]o other business [than that specified on the meeting agenda and notice] shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body.²  The Board violated Section 54956 by discussing and voting to instruct Mr. Pellman to violate the Elections Code, which was not an item of business that appeared on the Boardıs regular agenda or supplemental agenda for its December 18, 2001 meeting.

(b)                        Section 54957.7, which requires that, ³[p]rior to any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall disclose [in its agenda] . . . the item or items to be discussed in closed session,² and ³may consider only those matters² listed in its agenda.  The Board violated Section 54957.7 by discussing and voting to instruct Mr. Pellman to violate the Elections Code, which was not disclosed by the Board in its closed session agenda.

(c)                         Section 54956.9(c), which permits a legislative body to meet in closed session to discuss ³pending litigation² if ³[b]ased on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation.²  The Board violated Section 54956.9(c) by voting to violate the Elections Code, which was not a vote to ³initiate litigation.²  The Board voted to violate a statute, an act that might have prompted a third party to initiate litigation against the County.  The Board did not a vote to ³initiate litigation² by the County.  Thus, the Boardıs vote did not fall within the Brown Actıs safe harbor provision for closed session discussion of ³initiation of litigation.²

(d)                        Section 54954.3(c), which provides that ³[n]o legislative body of a local agency shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.²  The Board violated Section 54954.3(c) by voting 4‑1 to order Mr. Pellman to violate the Elections Code, and by not reporting that action publicly.

(e)                         Section 54954.5(e), which requires that a legislative body must describe its closed session agenda item related to a ³public employee performance evaluation² by listing the ³Title² of the employee and ³specifying the position title of employee being reviewed.²  The Board violated Section 54954.5(e) by failing to identify the specific department title of the employee being evaluated in agenda item No. CS‑2.  (Exhibit A at 3.)  When the County has many department heads, a more specific description is required.

(f)                           In addition, the Boardıs discussion and action in closed session about instructing Mr. Pellman to violate the Elections Code during its December 18 meeting violated Section 54953 (³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public²); and Section 54962 (³no closed session may be held² unless ³expressly authorized by this chapter²).

50.                     As described above, Petitioners have obtained evidence from the Board demonstrating that the Board has violated several provisions of the Brown Act during its December 18 meeting.

51.                     Petitioners have notified the Board of these violations of the Brown Act, both in letters and in news articles.  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

52.                     In fact, on February 5, 2002, the Board suddenly voted to prohibit its Executive Officer from taking notes of its discussions during closed sessions and to bar any tape recording or videotaping of its closed sessions, repealing a long-standing policy to take minutes of closed session discussions.  (Exhibit Q at 4.)

53.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

54.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on December 18, 2001, in that the Board held discussions and took a secret vote on an item of business not listed on the posted agenda; excluded the public from the Boardıs discussion and secret vote on an item of business not authorized for discussion or action in closed session; failed to report the vote of each member present in that closed session; and failed to list the specific title or department head being ³evaluated.²

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

december 19, 2001 meeting

55.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Petition.

56.                     When three Board members used Mr. Pellman as a personal intermediary to hold substantive discussions during serial telephone conversations on December 19, 2001, and to develop a collective concurrence by a quorum of the Board to instruct Mr. Pellman to obey the Elections Code, the Board held a secret meeting and vote that violated the following subsections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54952.2(b), which states that  ³any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.²  The Board violated Section 54952.2(b) by using Mr. Pellman as an intermediary to conduct a serial meeting by telephone to develop a collective concurrence to reverse their December 18 vote and instruct Mr. Pellman to obey the Elections Code.

(b)                        Section 54954.2, which mandates that ³[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, a legislative body of a local agency shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.²  The Board violated Section 54954.2 by not posting an agenda at least 72 hours before its December 19, 2001 meeting.

(c)                         Section 54954.3(c), which provides that ³[n]o legislative body of a local agency shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.²  The Board violated Section 54954.3(c) by voting 3‑0 to reverse or rescind its December 18 vote, ordering Mr. Pellman to obey the Elections Code, and by not reporting that action publicly.

(d)                        Section 54953, which requires that³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public.²  The Board violated Section 54953 by holding a secret serial meeting without advance public notice, and by secretly voting to instruct Mr. Pellman to obey the Elections Code.

(e)                         Section 54962, which requires that ³no closed session may be held² unless ³expressly authorized by this chapter[.]²  The Board violated Section 54962 by holding a secret serial meeting to discuss a matter not expressly permitted for closed session, namely to instruct Mr. Pellman to obey the Elections Code.

(f)                           Section 54957.7, which requires that, ³[p]rior to any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall disclose [in its agenda] . . . the item or items to be discussed in closed session,² and ³may consider only those matters² listed in its agenda.  The Board violated Section 54957.7 by discussing and voting to instruct Mr. Pellman to violate the Elections Code, which was not disclosed by the Board in its closed session agenda.

57.                     As described above, Petitioners have obtained evidence demonstrating that the Board violated several provisions of the Brown Act during its December 19 meeting.

58.                     Petitioners have notified the Board of these violations of the Brown Act, both in letters and in news articles.  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

59.                     In fact, on February 5, 2002, the Board voted to halt its long-standing policy of instructing the Executive Officer to take notes of its discussions during closed sessions and to bar any tape recording or videotaping of its closed sessions.  (Exhibit Q at 4.)

60.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

61.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on December 19, 2001, in that the Board held a secret serial meeting not publicly posted on any advance agenda or notice; and held secret discussions and took a secret vote on an item of business not authorized for discussion or action in closed session; and failed to report the vote of each member present in that session.

third CAUSE OF ACTION

january 4, 2002 meeting

62.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60of this Petition.

63.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that when the Board met during its ³adjourned meeting² in closed session on Friday, January 4, 2002, ostensibly ³for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation (one case), pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code § 54956.9 and considering Department Head performance evaluation, pursuant to Government Code § 54957,² the Board in fact discussed other topics.

64.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board discussed whether the previous actions of Mr. Pellman and the Board violated the Brown Act.  In engaging in closed session discussions not listed on the agenda and not authorized for closed session discussion, the Board violated the following sections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54956, which requires that ³[n]o other business [than that specified on the meeting notice] shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body.²  The Board violated Section 54956 by discussing the Boardıs own actions on December 18 and 19, whether such actions violated the Brown Act, and whether Supervisor Molina could bring a private lawyer to the closed session.  These topics were not related to the ³significant exposure to litigation² or an ³evaluation² of a department head.

(b)                        Section 54956.9(b)(1), which permits a legislative body to meeting in closed session to discuss ³pending litigation² if ³[b]ased on existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.²  The Board violated Section 54956.9(b)(1) by discussing its previous decision to violate the Elections Code, whether the Board violated the Brown Act on December 19, and whether Supervisor Molina could bring a private lawyer to the closed session.  These topics were not related to ³significant exposure to litigation.²

(c)                         In addition, the Boardıs discussion in closed session about its previous decision to violate the Elections Code, whether three Board members violated the Brown Act on December 19, and whether Supervisor Molina could bring a private lawyer to a closed session violated Section 54953 (³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public²); and Section 54962 (³no closed session may be held² unless ³expressly authorized by this chapter²).

65.                     As described above, Petitioners have obtained evidence from the Board strongly suggesting that the Board violated several provisions of the Brown Act during its January 4 meeting.

66.                     Petitioners have notified the Board of these violations of the Brown Act, both in letters and in news articles.  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

67.                     On February 5, 2002, the Board voted to halt its long-standing policy of instructing the Executive Officer to take notes of its discussions during closed sessions and reporting them in the Boardıs confidential minutes of closed sessions, and to bar any tape recording or videotaping of closed sessions.  (Exhibit Q at 4.)

68.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

69.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on January 4, 2002, in that the Board held discussions on items of business not listed on the agenda; excluded the public from the Boardıs discussion and action on items of business not authorized for discussion or action in closed session; and failed to list the specific title or department head being ³evaluated.²

Fourth CAUSE OF ACTION

january 8, 2002 meeting

70.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Petition.

71.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that when the Board met in closed session on January 8, 2002, ostensibly to discuss a ³Department Head Performance evaluation² and a ³Report by the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel on duties of government attorneys in legal representation,² the Board in fact discussed other topics.

72.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board discussed whether the previous actions of Mr. Pellman and the Board violated the Brown Act.  In engaging in closed session discussions not listed on the agenda and not authorized for closed session discussion, the Board violated the following sections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54956, which requires that ³[n]o other business [than that specified on the meeting notice] shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body.²  The Board violated Section 54956 by discussing its own actions on December 18 and 19 regarding the Elections Code and whether such actions violated the Brown Act.  These topics were not related to the ³Department Head Performance evaluation² or a ³Report by the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel on duties of government attorneys in legal representation.²

(b)                        Section 54957, which permits a legislative body to meet in closed session to discuss employee matters such as an ³evaluation of performance² of a public employee.  The Board violated Section 54957 by discussing its previous actions at its December 18 and 19 meetings, and by discussing whether the Board should have violated the Elections Code.  These topics were not related to ³evaluation of performance² of an employee.

(c)                         Section 54954.5(e), which requires that a legislative body must describe its closed session agenda item related to a ³public employee performance evaluation² by listing the ³Title² of the employee and ³specifying the position title of employee being reviewed.²  The Board violated Section 54954.5(e) by failing to list the specific department title of the employee being evaluated.  Because the County has many department heads, a more specific description is required.

(d)                        In addition, by discussing in closed session its previous votes on December 18 and 19 regarding the Elections Code, the Brown Act, and the ³Report by the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel on duties of government attorneys in legal representation,² the Board violated Section 54953 (³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public²); and Section 54962 (³no closed session may be held² unless ³expressly authorized by this chapter²).

73.                     As described above, Petitioners have obtained evidence strongly suggesting that the Board violated several portions of the Brown Act during its January 8 meeting.

74.                     Petitioners have notified the Board of these violations of the Brown Act, both in letters and in news articles.  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

75.                     On February 5, 2002, the Board voted to halt its long-standing policy of instructing the Executive Officer to take notes of its discussions during closed sessions and reporting them in the Boardıs confidential minutes of closed sessions, and voted to bar any tape recording or videotaping of closed sessions.  (Exhibit Q at 4.)

76.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

77.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on January 8, 2002, in that the Board held discussions on items of business not listed on the agenda; excluded the public from the Boardıs discussion on items of business not authorized for closed session; and failed to list the specific title or department head being ³evaluated.²

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

misuse of ³department head evaluation² agenda items

78.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Petition.

79.                     The Board routinely lists ³Department Head performance evaluation² as a closed session agenda item, without specifying the title of the department head being reviewed, violating Section 54954.5(e).  When the Board listed ³Department Head performance evaluation² as a closed session agenda item for its meetings on January 4, 2002, January 8, 2002, and March 12, 2002 without providing the specific title of the department head being reviewed, the Board violated the following section of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54954.5(e), which requires that a legislative body must describe its closed session agenda item related to a ³public employee performance evaluation² by listing the ³Title² of the employee and ³specifying the position title of employee being reviewed.²  The Board violated Section 54954.5(e) by failing to list the specific department title of the employee being evaluated.  Because the County has many department heads, a more specific description is required.

(b)                        Petitioners allege on information and belief that by failing to identify which employee is being reviewed, the Board is able to use the agenda item to hide unauthorized secret discussions and votes.

80.                     The Boardıs systematic violation of the Brown Act and its failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

81.                     On February 5, 2002, the Board voted to halt its long-standing policy of instructing the Executive Officer to take notes of its discussions during closed sessions and reporting them in the Boardıs confidential minutes of closed sessions, and voted to bar any tape recording or videotaping of closed sessions.

82.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

83.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on January 4, 2002, January 8, 2002, and March 12, 2002, in that the Board failed to list the specific title or department head being ³evaluated² pursuant to Section 54954.5(e).

sixth CAUSE OF ACTION

HEALTH DEPUTY MEETINGS

84.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 82 of this Petition.

85.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the five Board members routinely use their Health Deputies as personal intermediaries to hold nonpublic and non-noticed meetings to discuss items of business that are expressly described as ³Board Agenda Items² and to develop a collective concurrence on those items prior to the Boardıs public meeting.  For example, the Health Deputies held nonpublic, non-noticed meetings on November 14, 2001; January 9, 2002; January 23, 2002; January 30, 2002; and March 27, 2002, to discuss items of business that later appeared on the Boardıs agenda, and which were largely approved by the Board.  When the Board used its deputies to hold meetings on Board agenda items, the Board violated the following sections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54952.2(b), which states that ³any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.²  (Emphasis added.)  The Board violated Section 54952.2(b) by using its Health Deputies as personal intermediaries to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken by the Board.

(b)                        Section 54954.2, which mandates that ³[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, a legislative body of a local agency shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.²  The Board violated Section 54954.2 by not publicly posting an agenda at least 72 hours before its Health Deputiesı meetings.

(c)                         Section 54953, which requires that ³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public.²  The Board violated Section 54953 by excluding the general public from its Health Deputiesı meetings.

86.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board routinely uses its Health Deputies to conduct the publicıs business during weekly meetings dating back to 1994, if not earlier.  (Exhibit W.) 

87.                     As described above, Petitioners have obtained evidence demonstrating that the Board violated several provisions of the Brown Act during its Health Deputiesı meetings.

88.                     The Times notified the Board of its repeated violations of the Brown Act during the Health Deputiesı meetings through a March 26, 2002 article published in The Times.  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

89.                     In fact, the Health Deputies held another nonpublic and non-noticed meeting on March 27, 2002, one day after the Times published its article stating that such conduct violated the Brown Act. (Exhibit CC at 3.) 

90.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

91.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violated the Brown Act on November 14, 2001; January 9, 2002; January 23, 2002; January 30, 2002; and March 27, 2002, in that the Board held non-noticed, nonpublic meetings by using its Health Deputies as intermediaries to ³hear discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter of jurisdiction² of the Board.

seventh CAUSE OF ACTION

SERIAL MEETINGS WITH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 

92.                     Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Petition.

93.                     When the five Board members or their staff members have held individual meetings with the County Administrator on Mondays to discuss the Boardıs Tuesday agenda, the Board  violated the following subsections of the Brown Act:

(a)                         Section 54952.2(b), which states that  ³any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.²  (Emphasis added.)  The Board violated Section 54952.2(b) by using the County Administrator as a personal intermediary to discuss items of business scheduled for discussion by the Board, or to develop a collective concurrence.

(b)                        Section 54954.2, which mandates that ³[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, a legislative body of a local agency shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.²  The Board violated Section 54954.2 by not publicly posting an agenda at least 72 hours before its serial meetings with the County Administrator.

(c)                         Section 54953, which requires that ³[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public.²  The Board violated Section 54953 by excluding the general public from its serial meetings with the County Administrator.

94.                     Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board routinely uses the County Administrator to conduct the publicıs business during nonpublic and non-noticed weekly meetings. 

95.                     As described above, Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board violated several provisions of the Brown Act during its weekly meetings with the County Administrator.

96.                     Petitioners have notified the Board of these repeated violations of the Brown Act in a March 26, 2002 article published in The Times.  (Exhibit P.)  The Boardıs failure to acknowledge or correct these violations of law leads Petitioners to believe that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future.

97.                     Pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons, such as The Times and Mr. McKee, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body.

98.                     Petitioners request that this Court hold and declare that the Board violates the Brown Act when it holds non-noticed, nonpublic serial meetings by using the County Administrator as a personal intermediary to discuss Board agenda items on Mondays.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

99.                     WHEREFORE, the Board on at least five occasions (December 18, 2001; December 19, 2001; January 4, 2002; January 8, 2002; and March 12, 2002), met in closed session to discuss topics that were not expressly authorized for closed session, not properly noticed in public agendas, not recorded or reported to the public as required, and/or not properly described in the agenda;

100.               WHEREFORE, the Board on at least two occasions (December 18, 2001 and December 19, 2001), and took action but did not report that action to the public as required;

101.               WHEREFORE, a quorum of the Board on at least one occasion (December 19, 2001), held a non-noticed, nonpublic serial telephone meeting by using Mr. Pellman as a personal intermediary to discuss and vote on Board business;

102.               WHEREFORE, the Board on at least three occasions (January 4, 2002; January 8, 2002; and March 12, 2002), stated in its public agendas that it would meet in closed session to consider ³Department Head performance evaluation(s),² but did not specify the title of the department head who was being reviewed as required;

103.               WHEREFORE, the Board on at least five occasion (November 14, 2001; January 9, 2002; January 23, 2002; January 30, 2002; and March 27, 2002), held nonpublic, non-noticed meetings by using its Health Deputy staff members as personal intermediaries to gather facts, discuss, deliberate and develop a collective concurrence on the Boardıs agenda items;

104.               WHEREFORE, Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board routinely uses the County Administrator as an intermediary to hold nonpublic, non-noticed serial meetings to discuss the Boardıs agenda one day before its regularly scheduled meeting;

105.               WHEREFORE, the Board has demonstrated a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct and an unwillingness to acknowledge or correct this conduct;

106.               WHEREFORE, the Board refuses to acknowledge its past violations, and has taken steps to erase any evidence of future violations by banning the Executive Officer from recording a summary of its discussions in closed session; 

107.               WHEREFORE, Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Board will continue to violate the Brown Act in the future by holding nonpublic, non-noticed meetings with the County Administrator and by its Health Deputies and other staff members functioning as intermediaries, and by holding unauthorized and unannounced closed sessions and secret votes under the guise of serial telephone discussions, ³potential litigation² or ³Department Head performance evaluations;²

108.               WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 54960, interested persons or persons, such as Petitioners, may ³commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations² of the Brown Act, or ³to determine the applicability² of the Brown Act ³to actions or threatened future action² of the legislative body; and

109.               WHEREFORE, if the Court finds a violation of the Brown Act has occurred, it may ³compel the legislative body to tape record its closed sessions and preserve the tape recordings for the period and under the terms and security and confidentiality that the court deems appropriate.²  Government Code § 54960(b);

Petitioners therefore pray:

1.                           That the Court enter a declaratory judgment that the Board violated the Brown Act during its meetings on December 18, 2001; December 19, 2001; January 4, 2002; January 8, 2002; March 12, 2002; and March 27, 2002; during the meetings of the Boardıs Health Deputies on November 14, 2001; January 9, 2002; January 23, 2002; January 30, 2002; and March 27, 2002; and during the Boardıs one-on-one discussions regarding agenda items with the County Administrator, all in the manner described by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action, and on any other dates that the Court determines that such violations have occurred;

2.                           That the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the Board to:

(a)                         halt all meetings of a majority of the Boardıs staff members, including but not limited to the Health Deputies, ³to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction² of the Board pursuant to Section 54952.2 (a), unless those meetings adhere to requirements of the Brown Act for meetings of legislative bodies, which includes but is not limited to posting agendas 72-hours in advance of the meetings, distributing staff reports and other documents, and the taking of minutes and reports of all actions taken; and 

(b)                        halt all substantive serial meetings between Board members or their personal representatives and department heads or county executive officers, including but not limited to the County Administrator, ³to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction² of the Board pursuant to Section 54952.2 (a);

3.                           That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate under seal of this Court ordering the Board to:

(a)                         produce for in camera review all of the Boardıs minutes of its closed session meetings starting from December 18, 2001 to the present to allow the Court to determine whether the Board held discussions outside the scope of the posted agenda items, discussed topics not expressly permitted by statute for closed session, or took action not reported;

(b)                        immediately release to the public all those closed session minutes that the  Court determines were outside the scope of the posted agenda item and not permitted for closed session discussion under the Brown Act;

(c)                         immediately release to the public all those closed session documents and Board memoranda that the Court determines were outside the scope of the posted agenda item and not permitted for closed session discussion under the Brown Act;

(d)                        rescind the Boardıs rule prohibiting the Executive Officer from taking minutes of or making tape recordings of closed session discussions;

(e)                         take written notes of discussions of closed sessions and maintain those notes in a Minute Book pursuant to Section 54957.2;

(f)                           videotape and audiotape all of the Boardıs closed sessions pursuant to Section 54960 and to maintain those recordings according to law;

(g)                        take discussion and action only on those items of business adequately described on the posted notice for a regular or special meeting pursuant to Section 54954.2;

(h)                        consider only the items of business, and no others, described on the posted notice for a regular or special meeting pursuant to Section 54954.2;

(i)                           consider and act upon in closed session only the items of business properly agendized or noticed pursuant to Section 54954.2;

(j)                           discuss and act upon in closed session only those items expressly authorized to be discussed and acted upon in closed session pursuant to Section 54954.2;

(k)                        report the vote or abstention of each Board member present on each action taken in closed session pursuant to Section 54957.1;

(l)                           report on the posted notice for Board meetings the specific title and specific department of the ³department head² who is being ³evaluated² in closed session pursuant to Section 54954.5(e); and

(m)                     release to the public the ³Report by the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel on duties of government attorneys in legal representation² discussed by the Board in closed session on January 8, 2002;

4.                           That this Court maintain jurisdiction over the Board to ensure the Boardıs continued adherence to the Brown Act;

5.                           That Petitioners recover their attorneysı fees incurred in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and/or Government Code § 54960.5;

6.                           For an award of costs incurred in this action; and,

7.                           For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

DATED: April 1, 2002                                         DAVIS  WRIGHT  TREMAINE  LLP

KELLI L. SAGER

ALONZO WICKERS IV

Susan E. Seager

 

LOS ANGELES TIMES

KARLENE GOLLER

 

 

By:                                                                       

Alonzo Wickers IV

 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba LOS ANGELES TIMES,

RICHARD P. MCKEE

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE BY HAND DELIVERY

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

                       


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

 

 


[1] Petitioners will reserve a hearing date upon receipt of the Notice Of Case Assignment, and will file a supporting memorandum of points and authorities at that time.

[2] All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

[3] ³Closed session² refers to those portions of the Boardıs meetings that are not open to the public or disclosed to the public.  Such sessions are permitted only under narrow exemptions to the Brown Act.  See Section 54962.