News

Editorial: Don't undermine the Brown Act

California journalists and advocates of open government are rightfully concerned over the Legislature's suspension of an important provision of the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. In a move they claim will save some $96 million over the next three years, state lawmakers last month eliminated reimbursement to public agencies for posting meeting agendas in advance of the sessions — a Brown Act requirement. This move effectively removes the legal duty cities and special districts have had for decades to inform citizens of when their city councils, commissions, and boards will meet, and what they will be discussing.

Locally, the public has reason to cheer: City officials of Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside and Portola Valley have said they intend to continue posting agendas despite the provision's suspension. Although we have yet to survey officials of special districts such as West Bay Sanitary and Sequoia Healthcare, we hope they will acknowledge the importance of keeping the public informed about board meetings, and continue posting.

But regardless of those commitments by a growing number of agencies across the state to continue abiding by the posting provisions despite being let off the hook by Sacramento, the suspension of this critical requirement is troubling.

The Brown Act was passed in 1953, and was largely the result of investigative work done by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter focusing on the problem of elected officials doing the public's business in private, leading to important decisions being made without the scrutiny of those who would be affected by them. It has been expanded over the years to better protect the public's right to know and to participate in the process of governance.

Open-government advocates have applauded these additions through the years, but what happened in June may have been the first time we've had to watch our lawmakers subtract from the law. It is a development that chisels away at the principle behind the Brown Act — that citizens must have access to their government and the ability to participate in its deliberative process, which under most circumstances must be conducted in public. The Legislature has sent the wrong message to public agencies in telling them that it is optional, not mandatory, to notify citizens that their elected officials and appointed boards will meet, and what's on the agenda.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Although local cities have stated their commitment to continue posting meeting agendas voluntarily, the public shouldn't have to rely on the government's willingness to disclose information citizens need to know if they are to participate in the public process. State lawmakers should reinstate the provision.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Editorial: Don't undermine the Brown Act

Uploaded: Mon, Aug 6, 2012, 8:37 am
Updated: Mon, Aug 6, 2012, 8:41 am

California journalists and advocates of open government are rightfully concerned over the Legislature's suspension of an important provision of the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. In a move they claim will save some $96 million over the next three years, state lawmakers last month eliminated reimbursement to public agencies for posting meeting agendas in advance of the sessions — a Brown Act requirement. This move effectively removes the legal duty cities and special districts have had for decades to inform citizens of when their city councils, commissions, and boards will meet, and what they will be discussing.

Locally, the public has reason to cheer: City officials of Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside and Portola Valley have said they intend to continue posting agendas despite the provision's suspension. Although we have yet to survey officials of special districts such as West Bay Sanitary and Sequoia Healthcare, we hope they will acknowledge the importance of keeping the public informed about board meetings, and continue posting.

But regardless of those commitments by a growing number of agencies across the state to continue abiding by the posting provisions despite being let off the hook by Sacramento, the suspension of this critical requirement is troubling.

The Brown Act was passed in 1953, and was largely the result of investigative work done by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter focusing on the problem of elected officials doing the public's business in private, leading to important decisions being made without the scrutiny of those who would be affected by them. It has been expanded over the years to better protect the public's right to know and to participate in the process of governance.

Open-government advocates have applauded these additions through the years, but what happened in June may have been the first time we've had to watch our lawmakers subtract from the law. It is a development that chisels away at the principle behind the Brown Act — that citizens must have access to their government and the ability to participate in its deliberative process, which under most circumstances must be conducted in public. The Legislature has sent the wrong message to public agencies in telling them that it is optional, not mandatory, to notify citizens that their elected officials and appointed boards will meet, and what's on the agenda.

Although local cities have stated their commitment to continue posting meeting agendas voluntarily, the public shouldn't have to rely on the government's willingness to disclose information citizens need to know if they are to participate in the public process. State lawmakers should reinstate the provision.

Comments

Observer
Woodside High School
on Aug 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Observer, Woodside High School
on Aug 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Like this comment

Why not just reduce the amount authorized for reimbursement to (near)zero? In this age of automated publishing, the cost of posting is negligibly small. It makes sense to be frugal, even when hewing to public standards.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Like this comment

The Town of Atherton has decided to continue to fulfill these notice requirements in spite of the state action - hopefully other local entities will do the same.


Menlo Voter
Menlo Park: other
on Aug 6, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
on Aug 6, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Like this comment

" hopefully other local entities will do the same."

I wouldn't count on it Peter. Maybe initially, but when they figure out what they can get away with, it will go away in name of "saving the taxpayers money."


Jack Hickey
Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:05 am
Jack Hickey, Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:05 am
Like this comment

As a Member of the Sequoia Healthcare District Board of Directors, I am unaware of any reimbursement for Brown Act compliance. It is not unreasonable to expect such compliance to be funded by each agency from tax revenue collected. Their taxing ability derives from the State.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.