News

 

July 28, 1999

For immediate release

Contact: Wendy Zlotlow, 916/974-8888

 

 

City Officials Harass Fellow Board Member: Citizens Threaten to Sue

 

In what a local citizen's group considers a grievous violation of California's open meeting law, the Mission Viejo city council, while in closed session on April 19, harassed a fellow board member for speaking to the press.

An article in the Los Angeles Times on April 16 detailed a proposal by Councilman John Paul Ledesma that would require voter approval on redevelopment bonds and on capital improvement projects exceeding two million dollars. At its next meeting on April 19, the council adjourned into closed session to discuss two agendized items: a litigation case and a personnel matter. But, after discussing both items, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Manager Dan Joseph were dismissed. The council remained in closed session for another 15 to 20 minutes. Later, Ledesma admitted that during the private session the mayor reprimanded him for expressing his views to the press.

Kyle Crenshaw, Brad Morton and Eugene Dale Tyler, three residents concerned about the precedent that such a deliberate and direct violation of state law may set, have threatened litigation if the council does not take action to cure and correct its wrongdoing by August 6. Their attorney, James V. Lacy, submitted a formal demand to the council on July 6. His clients are all regular council meeting attendees.

According to Lacy, the council's actions violate at least five provisions of the Brown Act. Not only is it illegal to stifle or discourage free expression by a board member, he says, but the additional item discussed in closed session breaks a number of other closed session regulations requiring every item to be properly agendized, limited to certain topic restrictions and disclosed to the public.

The Brown Act requires that public boards conduct their business openly before the public they were elected to serve. It also limits closed session discussion by requiring items to be properly agendized and identified. Finally, only a limited set of topics may be legally discussed in closed session. Chastising another board member for expressing his own opinions to the press is not listed among the allowed topics for discussion.

The city attorney, by council resolution and under state law, is the designated officer required to attend each closed session and to keep accurate record of all topics discussed and all actions taken. The dismissal of the city attorney, Lacy claims, is strong evidence of intent on the part of the council to withhold information from the public. If the violation is found by the court to be intentional, it may be charged as a misdemeanor.

For the city to avoid litigation, it must post the item discussed in closed session for an open meeting, admit publicly that the item discussed was improper, offer a public apology to Councilman Ledesma and promise to not violate the Brown Act again. Lacy's demand affirmed that anything short of the above actions would result in a lawsuit and an attempt to require videotaping of all city council closed sessions for four years.

Crenshaw, Morton and Tyler would prefer that the city meet their demand to cure and correct, although they are fully prepared to take the matter to trial. The city has not yet responded to the demand and, city officials say they will not do so until the next city council meeting on August 16, after the stated deadline. Lacy confirmed that his clients will file a lawsuit if the city does not respond in the allotted thirty days. However, Joseph maintained that the lawsuit would have to be withdrawn if the council decided to take corrective action even after the deadline had passed.

None of the plaintiffs stand to gain anything financially from the suit, although they may be reimbursed for the costs of litigation which can be very expensive if the case goes to court. Their purpose in challenging the board, according to Morton, is simply to ensure that the city council remains "honest and trustworthy." Morton is currently president of the Committee for Integrity in Government.

In enacting the Brown Act in 1953, the California Legislature declared that "the intent of [this] law is that [public agencies'] actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." It is not the right of public servants "to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." By challenging the actions of the Mission Viejo City Council, Crenshaw, Morton and Tyler are fighting to maintain the spirit of the Brown Act and to defend the public's right to know.

 

The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) supports the Ralph M Brown Act as vital to maintaining openness and combatting corruption in government. CFAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of all people to be informed and involved citizens. CFAC fulfills this mission by operating a statewide ActionLine, through its involvement in litigation and the legislative process, and by conducting seminars throughout the state on the Brown Act (California's open meeting law) and the California Public Records Act. CFAC is funded by membership dues, contributions and grants.