Issue date: April 01, 1998
By RENEE DEAL
Attorney Tony Tanke dashed off a strongly worded letter March 24 to West Bay Sanitary District directors protesting an attempt by the board's president and attorney to hold what he charges would have been an illegal closed meeting the night before.
The charge stems from the attempt by board president David Knight, supported by attorney William Esselstein, to call an emergency closed session to discuss the "ratepayer's demand for action" brought to the board March 23 by Mr. Tanke and his client, Ronald Shepherd.
Mr. Tanke condemned the maneuver as an attempt "to conduct public business secretly, privately and illegally." He also complained that Mr. Knight waited until after he and his client left before urging the board to agree to a closed session, although such a meeting was not on the agenda.
The attempt, which Mr. Tanke charged was planned in advance, was thwarted when director John Carcione objected because the legally required 72-hour notice to the public had not been given. Mr. Carcione said later that the matter was dropped after he objected, and directors Finn Halbo and Don Van Creveld then indicated they would not support the closed session. Director Harry Harrison said after the meeting that he, too, was opposed to the closed session.
Mr. Tanke was especially critical of Mr. Esselstein, who justified the closed session by citing a section of the Brown Act -- California's public meeting law -- that allows a meeting without public notice if "there is a need to take immediate action" and the need for action "came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted."
"There was obviously no need to take immediate action in this case -- my demand gave the board 20 days to respond," Mr. Tanke wrote.
Terry Francke, attorney for the California First Amendment Coalition and a Brown Act expert, agreed the closed session would have been improper because "there was no need to take immediate action" with a 20-day deadline specified in the papers filed by Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Esselstein, in a March 26 letter to Mr. Tanke, reiterated his judgment that the board "was clearly entitled" to consider adding an agenda item that night under the provision of the Brown Act dealing with emergencies and need for immediate action.
© 1998 The Almanac. All Rights Reserved.