Item 11 Staff Report Authrorize Mayor to Respond to 1995-96 Grand Jury Report as Contained in Attachment 1COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
49SGAS0
DATE: JULY 16, 1996
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
rl
MEETING DATE: 8/5/96
ITEM NO. /
AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO RESPOND TO 1995-1996 GRAND JURY REPORT AS
CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to respond to 1995- ] 996 Grand Jury Report as contained in Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION:
The 1995-1996 Santa Clara Grand Jury reviewed the way that local governments have implemented the New Brown
Act. After finding that they are generally complying with the Act, the Grand Jury recommended that the agencies
"[djevelop and/or bring up to date written meeting procedures. They should be designed for public understanding and
use, and be made available to the public."
In Los Gatos, the Town Clerk has taken the lead in developing and distributing information regarding public
participation in Town processes and meetings. In addition, the Planning Commission has detailed procedures that are
used at each Commission meeting.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed response (Attachment 1) indicates this effort and also notes the current meeting scheduled by the Mayor
for improving public communication.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
Attachments:
1. Final Report - Review of the Implementation of the New Brown Act by Local Government Agencies
2. Proposed letter
PREPARED BY: DAVID W. KNAPP
Town Manager
DWK:pm
MGR102 A:\CN LRPTS18-5,
Reviewed by: Attorney Finance
Revised: 7/16/96 5:29 pm
Reformatted: 10/23/95
•
..GRA.ND
S A N T A CLARA
U R Y
C O O N '! Y
June
Honorable Randy Attaway
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway:
JUN 20 1996
TOWN MANAGER
Received: Z7
i J Info . •.on
1996 Copy `f o
19
► Other:
Acting under Penal Code Section 925a, the 1995-1996 Santa
Clara County Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report,
Review of the Implementation of the New Brown Act by Local
Government Agencies.
Penal Code Section 933 requires that the governing body of the
public agency which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final
report shall comment within 90 days to the presiding judge of the
Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to
matters under control of the governing body.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Joseph F.
Biafore, Jr., Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court,
90 days from the date of receipt of the report.
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk
of the public agency and the Office of the County Clerk.
NSF:bc
Enc.
Sincerely,
NANCY S. FREEMAN
Foreperson
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 299-2731
6.007
1995-1996 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND JURY
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW BROWN ACT
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
ABSTRACT
Recent state legislation regarding the law (The Brown Act)
which governs public meetings, mandated that local governmental
agencies change their meeting procedures. To analyze these
changes, the Grand Jury conducted a survey, attended public
meetings, reviewed meeting Agendas and Minutes, and interviewed
various public officials. The Grand Jury found the vast majority
of public officials have been trained in the new law. However,
only a few have published their meeting procedures and guidelines
for the public.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors, and
other local government agencies, develop and/or bring their written
meeting procedures up to date. Further recommendations include
encouragement of the formation of a county -wide task force to
foster sharing, collaboration, and centralization of information to
ensure implementation of the spirit and letter of the law.
1
1995-1996 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND JURY
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW BROWN ACT
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
INTRODUCTION
The law which guarantees the public's right to attend and
participate in meetings of local legislative bodies is the Ralph M.
Brown Act (The Act). On April 1, 1994, a comprehensive reform of
The Act became effective. Changes were made to almost every
section of The Act to renew and bolster the public's right of
access to local government meetings.
As a result of these changes, the Grand Jury determined it
would survey the methods and systems used by local legislative
bodies to implement both the letter and the spirit of The Act.
Authority for such analysis by the Grand Jury is contained in the
California Penal Code, Article 2, Sections 925, 925a, 933.1, 933.5,
and 933.6.
This Grand Jury review was designed to gather data using a
variety of techniques including:
1. A written survey sent to the County Government, Cities,
School Districts, and selected Special Districts.
2. Attendance at meetings of selected government bodies.
3. A review of various agencies' meeting Agendas and
Minutes.
4. Reading applicable laws, legal opinions, court cases and
training materials.
5. Interviews with selected public officials and staff.
DESCRIPTION
The Law The Ralph M. Brown Act can be found in the California
Government Code, Section 54950, et seq.
Declaration of intent; sovereignty. In enacting this
chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the
public commissions, boards, and councils and the other
public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct
of the people's business. It is the intent of the law
that their deliberations be conducted openly.
In 1953, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown introduced the bill which
required public agencies to conduct their meetings in public with
permissible closed sessions. The Act has been amended numerous
times. A collaborative effort of representatives of public
agencies, the news media, and others resulted in the changes which
became effective on April 1, 1994. The substantial changes had
significant impact on public agencies, especially in the areas of
2
4
r. i
employment, labor relations, and personnel related matters. It
also required changes in forms, notices, checklists and other
written procedures.
An exception was made by the Legislature for School Districts
by the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 355. It is discussed in the
FINDINGS section of this report under School Districts.
In a 1994 publication of the Office of the California Attorney
General, "The Brown Act - Open Meetings For Local Legislative
Bodies," the background, purpose and scope, and major provisions of
The Act were outlined and summarized. The full text of The Act,
related cases, statutes, Attorney General Opinions, and other legal
resources were also presented.
The publication states that:
The Act represents the Legislature's determination of how
the balance should be struck between public access . . .
and the need for confidential candor and debate . . . the
Legislature has established a presumption in favor of
public access . . . but contains specific exemptions . .
. where government has a demonstrated need for
confidentiality.
The Survey The survey sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What written procedures are available to the public to
assist it in understanding and following the rules?
2. Is there ongoing training regarding The Act available for
public officials, appointees, and administrative staffs?
3. Is public participation provided for at meetings and are
Agendas and back-up materials available to the public at
these meetings?
4. What problems have been caused by The Act as viewed by
government officials?
The Grand Jury did not make a qualitative analysis of the
correlation of actual behavior of local agencies to their written
procedures. No judgments were made by the Grand Jury about whether
agencies actually followed each and every specific provision of the
law. The purpose of the Grand Jury was to determine if compliance
procedures were in place.
A one -page survey form was sent in January, 1996 to the
elected leaders of all governmental agencies in the County. All
agencies were requested to forward the survey to those boards,
commissions, and other governmental bodies that had been formed
under their jurisdiction.
3
FINDINGS
Responses to the survey are summarized below and are organized
by governmental category to allow for the differences in local
governments. Also included in the FINDINGS are the results of
analysis of Agendas and Minutes, attendance at meetings, review of
related materials, and interviews.
Santa Clara County The County, fifth largest in the State
with a population of 1,612,300, is a Charter County with five
supervisors elected by district. The County employs over 15,000
people, the majority of whom work in Santa Clara Valley Health and
Hospital System, law and justice departments, social services, and
transportation.
In addition to surveying implementation of The Act by the
Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury was interested in determining
Board leadership to the numerous commissions, committees,
authorities, and other agencies under its jurisdiction. There
appears to be no comprehensive and concise list of the many
entities operating as part of the County decision making process.
The Grand Jury was unable to determine the number of entities which
the Board of Supervisors oversees in regard to compliance with the
Act. There was not a total relationship among:
1. The responses to the Grand Jury survey.
2. The published list of Boards and Commissions.
3. Board of Supervisors' Committee Assignments.
4. Meeting times and places published on Board of
Supervisors' meetings Agenda.
5. The actual posted Agendas.
A 1993 booklet entitled, Rules of the Board of Supervisors,
outlined procedures for the compliance with earlier provisions of
The Act. An undated Handbook for Commissions and Board Members
contains the previously mentioned 1994 publication of the Attorney
General. There was no written explanation of The Act and its
application by the Board and its commissions available to the
public.
Agendas for meetings were posted on a bulletin board in the
plaza at the County Government Building at 70 West Redding Street
in San Jose, including Agendas for meetings taking place at other
sites. However, Agendas were not generally posted at those other
sites. There were Agendas and back-up material for public
information available at Board meetings. The Grand Jury observed
at several Commission and committee meetings a generally
cooperative attitude in providing materials to the public.
The County sponsored a New Brown Act training workshop in
March of 1994. Members of all Boards, Commissions, Committees,
Authorities, and staff were invited. Attendance at the workshop
4
was not mandatory. The training was conducted by County Counsel
who serves, upon request, as legal counsel for many of the above -
mentioned bodies. There is no evidence of systematic and ongoing
training.
Cities There are 15 Cities or Towns in Santa Clara County
ranging in size from San Jose (849,400 residents) to Monte Sereno
(3,280 residents). All cities and towns responded to the Grand
Jury in a timely fashion, although quantity and quality of
responses varied.
The Grand Jury requested the names and listings of all
agencies under each city. San Jose, Los Altos, Santa Clara, and
Sunnyvale were generally complete in their responses.
Most responses were prepared by the City Attorney, City
Manager, or City Clerk. Four cities were exceptional in their
presentation of written procedures including Mt. View, Palo Alto,
San Jose and Santa Clara.
Written procedures regarding the implementation of The Act
submitted by the cities consisted of memos, handbooks, resolutions,
and various other types of material. The Grand Jury noted that
Agendas for almost all city meetings contain guidelines for public
participation. It was also observed that materials were available
to the public at meetings attended by the Grand Jury. In practice,
adherence to The Act was a major consideration in the conduct of
the meeting.
Training in The Act was provided for the most part by City
Attorneys. All cities have conducted such training sessions within
the last two years. There was some dependence on training received
from the League of California Cities. Many cities stated that
there was an ongoing process of keeping up with the changes in The
Act. There was evidence that there was an ongoing process of
orientation for incoming public officials in all cities.
Cities reported the following typical problems in the
implementation of the Act:
1. The burden of time and cost in preparing Agendas, Minutes
and other materials.
2. Training needed for Council members and staff.
3. The gray areas of the law on closed sessions (personnel,
real estate, litigation, and labor relations).
4. Distribution of materials.
5. The use of fax machines and/or electronic mail enabling
possible circumvention of The Act.
6. The difficulty in conducting "Town Hall" meetings in view
of agenda requirements of The Act.
Some comments showed a willingness to improve systems while other
5
comments gave the impression that The Act was a general problem
that got in the way of quiet meetings.
The Grand Jury found that cities were adhering to the letter
of the law, but a little weak on the spirit of the law. Although
not mentioned in responses to the Survey, several cities have local
cable television coverage of their Council meetings which allows
the public to observe their deliberations.
School Districts There are 37 school districts and a County
Office of Education in Santa Clara County serving over 300,000
students. Each District and the County Office is governed by an
elected Board of Trustees with a Superintendent as its Chief
Administrative Officer.
School districts have advisory bodies which are either
required by law or established to gather public input. Only three
districts indicated to the Grand Jury that they took responsibility
for the supervision of these groups, while other districts were
silent on the issue. Emergency legislation (SB 355 of June 1994)
amended certain sections of the California Education Code and
specifically exempted School District Advisory Committees from the
provisions of The Act. At the same time, however, SB 355 imposed
restrictions on posting of Agendas and required meetings to be open
to the public. This legislation allows School Site Councils and
committees slightly more flexibility in dealing with local issues
in a timely manner.
District responses to the Grand Jury contained a wide variety
of materials. Few District meeting procedures were up to date.
The Grand Jury, through examination of Agendas and Minutes and
attendance at various Board of Trustee meetings, noted practices
and procedures that demonstrated an adequate grasp of the intent of
the law. The Grand Jury also noted that some Districts have
developed and/or updated their Brown Act procedures subsequent to
the survey.
School Boards reported receiving training from a wide variety
of sources. The California School Boards Association and local
Superintendents provide guidance. Several Boards had received some
training from retained legal firms. Almost all had been trained on
the recent changes in The Act.
Public participation was noted at most school board meetings.
Agendas and Minutes reflected a fundamental understanding of the
Act. However, very few Districts had written guidelines concerning
rights of the public regarding their participation at public
meetings. This deficiency resulted in details of The Act having to
be explained during the meeting, sometimes giving the appearance
that the Board was not being responsive to the public.
6
School Districts reported several problems in implementing The
Act. Comments regarding the amount of time, expense, and the
issues surrounding rules for Advisory Committees and School Site
Councils were mentioned. Five districts reported their biggest
problem was compliance with the section of The Act which requires,
". . . all regular and special meetings of a legislative body to be
held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local
agency exercises jurisdiction."
Special Districts There are over fifty Special Districts in
Santa Clara County that have been formed for specific purposes,
such as Cemetery, Fire Protection, Hospital, Lighting, Street
Maintenance, Library, Open Space, Sanitary, Transit, and Water.
Several are very small and only meet occasionally. Many of these
districts fall under the jurisdiction of the County or various
cities and follow their respective procedures while others are
independent.
The Grand Jury noted that unless the Special District was
large, or under the jurisdiction of another agency, written meeting
procedures were almost non-existent. From the quality of most
responses, the Grand Jury determined that there was an apparent
lack of awareness of the fact that The Act applied to all Special
Districts. Exceptionally detailed responses were received from the
Mid -Peninsula Open Space Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
Training was available on an intermittent basis, usually
depending if there was a parent organization. Some training was
received from various associations, law firms, and administrative
staffs. There was an almost direct correlation between size and
complexity of the district to the scope and occurrence of training
received.
Some Special Districts reported problems in posting
requirements and ensuring that Agendas were consistent with The
Act. One response read:
The Act is not entirely clear how much leeway
officials have in responding to public comments during
"Oral Communication." The public often expects more in
the way of an immediate response to their concerns than
the Act allows officials to give. This opportunity for
public comment can raise expectations in the public's
mind that an agency can't fulfill.
This comment, and others like it, contained in responses to
the Grand Jury survey, clearly points out some of the difficulties
experienced by local agencies in following The Act. Vigilance by
the public and government officials to ensure that the business of
the public is conducted in the open is required.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of
Supervisors, City and Town Councils, School Boards, elected
officials of Special Districts, and their respective Chief
Executive Officers:
Develop and/or bring up to date written meeting
procedures. They should be designed for public
understanding and use, and be made available to the
public.
The Grand Jury further recommends that the County Board of
Supervisors:
1. Encourage the formation of a County -wide task force to
foster sharing, collaboration, and the centralization of
information to ensure the implementation of the spirit
and letter of the law.
2. Consider development of a video and pamphlet to be used
for informing the public and training elected and
appointed officials.
3. Sponsor an annual workshop or seminar to help local
government officials resolve problems and share
information.
4. Encourage the pooling of resources from the local
governmental agencies who are governed by the provisions
of The Act to provide funding for these recommendations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury this
13th day of June, 1996.
Nancy S U Freeman
Foreperson
Robert D. Kelley
Foreman Pro Tem
Marian E. Melendy
Secretary
8
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW BROWN ACT
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agendas and Minutes: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors,
Cities and Towns, School Districts, and selected Special
Districts. July, 1995 to May, 1996.
America Online, Mercury Center, San Jose Mercury News. Anderson,
Nick. "Strengthened Law Opens Official Meetings Wider."
Apr. 19, 1993.
"Mayor Accused of Violating Meeting Law." Apr. 30,
1993.
Aratani, Lori. "School Officials Rebut Report." Apr. 11,
1994.
"Grand Jury Criticizes County School Board." Apr. 8,
1994.
"Waste of Funds Cited: Grand Jury Blasts County
Education Board for Allegedly Squandering $6 Million During
Building Squabble." Apr. 7, 1994.
Editorial. "Bilingual Boo -Boo: Alum Rock Trustee Must Tell
The Full Story In English." Oct. 25, 1993.
Editorial. "Residents, Understandably, Want Light On Closed
Meetings." Apr. 11, 1993.
Joachim, Leland. "Sunnyvale Mayor's Foes May Have Violated
Law." Nov. 25, 1994.
"City Retains Its Method Of Picking Mayor." June 1,
1994.
Lubman, Sarah. "District Chief Gets Ultimatum." Jan. 20,
1996.
"S.J. Unified Chief Holds Off Ouster Bid." Jan. 25,
1996.
Mercury News Staff. "Officials Post -Meeting Meal Questioned."
Nov. 19, 1993.
Payne, Aleta and Foo, Rodney. "Parents Angry At Inaction On
Use of Spanish." Oct. 16, 1993.
9
A
"Cupertino School District Violated State Public
Meeting Law MN Says." Sept. 26, 1992.
Skipitares, Connie. "MN Sues Sunnyvale For Access." Dec. 1,
1995.
Suryaraman, Maya. "Berryessa Trustee Sues Over Presidency
Ouster." Jan. 18, 1996.
"Secrecy Alleged For Speaking Spanish At Meetings."
Oct. 14, 1993.
The Insider. "The Mighty Pen Or Bloody Sword." Jan. 29,
1995.
Allison, Renee C. & Newton, Thomas W. Reporters Handbook on Media
Law. Sacramento: California Newspaper Publishers Association,
1994.
California First Amendment Coalition. The New Brown Act.
Sacramento, 1994.
California Government Code, Section 54950 et seq. Ralph M. Brown
Act. Sacramento, 1994.
California School Boards Association and Kronick, Moskovitz,
Tiedeman & Girard. The Brown Act: School Board and Open
Meeting Laws. Sacramento, 1994.
Calonne, Ariel Pierre. Questions and Answers on the New Ralph M.
Brown Act: A Brief Guide through the 1993 Amendments to
California's Open Meeting Law. Palo Alto, 1994.
Civil Law Division. The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local
Legislative Bodies. California Attorney General's Office,
1994.
County of Santa Clara. Rules of the Board of Supervisors. 1993.
Fourkas, Ted. Open & Public II: A User's Guide to the Ralph M.
Brown Act. 1994.
Gallo, Joan. "Summary of Brown Act Requirements." Memorandum.
San Jose, June 28, 1994.
League of California Cities. The California Municipal Law
Handbook. Sacramento, 1994.
Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson. The New Brown Act. Los Angeles,
1994.
Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason. The "New" Brown
Act. San Jose, 1994.
10
Simitian, S. Joseph. The 1994 Ralph M. Brown Act. Palo Alto: Kay
& Stevens. 1993.
Tefft, Carol. Handbook for Commissions and Board Members. Santa
Clara County Public Service Agency. ND.
11
August 5, 1996
The Honorable Joseph F. Biafore, Jr.
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject: Comments on 1995-1996 Grand Jury Report on Review of the Implementation of the New
Brown Act by Local Government Agencies
Dear Sir:
The Town of Los Gatos has received the report of the Grand Jury and welcomes the overview and
suggestions that the Grand Jury has made.
As recommended by the Grand Jury, the Town Clerk annually updates the Town's Boards &
Commissions Handbook to reflect the latest changes and procedures in conducting meetings,
providing public notice, and enhancing public participation and understanding. The Town Clerk also
provides a handout to attendees at each Council meeting that provides a simple outline of how the
Council meeting is conducted.
As the Court knows, the Brown Act requirements are only a small part of the total effort that local
agencies make in providing public notice and soliciting public participation in local government. The
Town routinely reviews its planning and land use processes, because for cities and towns, these are
usually of most interest to citizens.
The Town has placed a number of meeting and other materials on the electronic network of Virtual
Valley for access by computer users, and is exploring additional ways to make its government
documents available in those evolving systems.
I am also currently meeting with citizens to discuss improvements in government/citizen
communication.
Sincerely yours,
RANDY ATTAWAY
Mayor RA:me
cc: Town Council MGR102;LETTERS\BIAFORE.
ATTACHMENT 2
August 5, 1996
Los Gatos, California
COUNCIL CALENDAR OF MEETINGS (04.10)
Informational item presenting future Town Meetings for Council and other Town Boards and
Commissions was received and filed.
PAYROLL RATIFICATION/JULY 1996 (05.V)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council ratify the check register for
the payroll of June 30 through July 13, 1996 paid on July 19, 1996 in the amount of $320,397.91.
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RATIFICATION/JULY 1996 (06.V)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council ratify the accompanying check
registers for accounts payable invoices paid on July 12, July 15, July 19 and July 26, 1996 in the
amount of $548,410.94. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
MINUTES OF JULY 15, 1996 (07.V)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council approve the Minutes of July
15, 1996 as submitted, including a desk item. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin
absent.
TREASURER'S REPORT (08.V)
Informational report submitted by the Treasurer to the Council as of May 31, 1996, was received
and filed.
ANNUAL REPORT FOR YEAR 1995-1996 (09.06)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept Fiscal Year 1995-
1996 Annual Report. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
NEWSRACK COMMITTEE/OLD TOWN PARKING LOT/50 UNIVERSITY AVE (10.44)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council approve deferring the
enforcement of the modular newsrack design requirement for newsracks within the public right-
of-way across from the Old Town Parking Lot at 50 University Avenue. Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
GRAND JURY REPORT/MAYOR'S RESPONSE (11.11)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council authorize Mayor to respond
to 1995-1996 Grand Jury Report as contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report. Carried by
a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
SMYTHE EUROPEAN GRANT/COMMUNITY SERVICES ALLOCATIONS (12.06)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council allocate $5,360 of Smythe
European Empowerment Drive (SEED) grant funds to Community Grant recipients in
accordance with Table I in the staff report and to adjust the Community Services Department's
budget accordingly. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
AMICUS BRIEF/KAVANAU/SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD (13A.01)
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council authorize the Town Attorney
to include the Town of Los Gatos as an amicus curiae in the case of Kavanau v. Santa Monica
Rent Control Board, California Supreme Court Case S05184, at no cost to the Town. Carried
by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
TC: D8: MM080596
2