L.A. County DA's Office Supports LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia's View of Brown (Open Meetings) Act, Warns Bd of Trustees It Must Disclose Proposed Contracts Agendized For Public Vote If Requested

LBReport.com

News

L.A. County DA's Office Supports LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia's View of Brown (Open Meetings) Act, Warns Bd of Trustees It Must Disclose Proposed Contracts Discussed In Closed Session And Then Agendized For Public Vote If Public Requests Document

DA's interpretation may affect LB City Hall practices that currently withhold such contracts from public until after they're done deals

LBCC Board avoids Brown Act violation only because no one (public or press) asked to see the contract

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(July 1, 2015, 4:40 p.m.) -- In a development that may echo from LBCC's ELB Board meeting room to downtown LB's City Council Chamber, the L.A. County District Attorney's office has informed LBCC's governing Board of Trustees by letter (full text below) that it violates the Brown ("open meetings") Act to withhold from the public (and the press) contracts publicly agendized for voted action if the document has been shared with the governing board's members in closed session and a member of the public requests to see the document when it's agendized for voted approval in open session.

The view of the DA's office is basically consistent with the dissenting view voiced by LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia on March 10, when she repeatedly questioned the Board's counsel, who indicated that the Board didn't have to disclose the text of a proposed new contract for LBCC's Superintendent/President until after the Board had voted on it in public session. The Board majority accepted the Board counsel's explanation; Board VP Otto added his support...and Trustee Zia voted against the new contract.

LBREPORT.com provides the full text of the DA office's letter below, as well as audio of the exchange at the March 10, 2015 LBCC Board of Trustees meeting cited by the DA's office in its letter.

[Scroll down for further below.

The issue arose in connection with an agendized item for publicly voted approval of a new contract for LBCC's Superintendent-President. Board President Trustee Jeff Kellogg volunteered an explanation as to why the contract wasn't publicly available prior to the Board vote, then gave the floor to Trustee Sunny Zia.

Ms. Zia, a non-lawyer, raised the issue in questions to LBCC's Board counsel (a private attorney) on the matter. When he offered a response that didn't satisfy her, she asked a second time; when she found his response less than responsive to her question, she asked a third time. And then a fourth time. On her final try, Board counsel said her question sounded "more like an argument than a question." LBCC Board VP Doug Otto, a veteran lawyer, basically concurred with Board counsel's Brown Act conclusion.

To hear the actual exchange in full, click here.

[Scroll down for further.]

The Board exchange drew the following response from L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Bjorn Dodd. In his letter dated June 29, he wrote:

...[O]ne member of the Board [Zia] inquired whether the contract needed to be made available to the public to address the contract in public comments before the Board voted on the contract. Two other members of the Board [Kellogg and Otto] responded by stating that the contract would become a public document only after the Board approved it. This position was also voiced by the Board's legal counsel when asked by Board members for direction.
However, that position is not true, and contradicts the statutes cited above [Brown Act, Gov't Code section 54957.5(a) and Gov't Code section 53262 (not part of the Brown Act, re community colleges.)]
...[W]hile the proposed contract is still being discussed in closed sessions, the Board is not obligated to share it with the public. However, if the contract is subject to a Board vote in open session it must be made available to the public once it has been distributed to a majority of the Board members, and upon request by a member of the public.
The reason that no violation [of the Brown Act] occurred at the meeting was because there is no record of any member of the public actually requesting to inspect a copy before or at the meeting. Had there been a request, the Brown Act requires that the document be made available to the public...

So...what about current Long Beach City Hall practice? To our knowledge, the issue hasn't come to the DA's office for review but for years, City Hall has routinely withheld from the public contracts discussed in closed Council sessions until after they're approved in open Council sessions and then signed, making them done-deals. LBREPORT.com has reached out to the Long Beach City Attorney's office for its views on the DA's office position on the Brown Act issue; a response is pending (July 1.).

LBREPORT.com publishes the DA's office letter in full below.

LA County DA letter re Brown Act to LBCC Board of Trustees