Patterson IrriGator: City Council may have skirted meeting laws
In the 1951, San Francisco Chronicle reporter Mike Harris spent six weeks looking into the way local agencies conducted meetings. State laws had required that business be done in public, but Harris discovered secret meetings or caucuses were common. He wrote a 10-part series on “Your Secret Government”, that ran in May and June of 1952.
Harris found elected officials, at all levels of government, who were outright contemptuous of the notion that their actions should be subject to public scrutiny.
Pay raises and layoff decisions were argued and decided in secret sessions. Major land-use policies and special favors for well-connected constituents were sometimes debated and settled without public notice or participation.
Sound familiar?
This was all suppose to change with the 1953 passage of the Ralph M. Brown Act, named after its author, a former Speaker of the state Assembly. Brown was a sharp but unpretentious lawyer from Modesto, who was considered a man of integrity in the lobbyist-controlled Capitol of the ’40s and ’50s.
As part of his law practice, Brown represented a group of Modesto nurses in labor negotiations with a public hospital in the early ’50s. After Brown thought he had a deal, the hospital directors reneged in a secret meeting.
The Brown Act said, “All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”
Additionally, the Brown Act left us with these guiding principles:
- The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
- The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
- The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Last week, the Patterson City Council made an enormous unethical mistake. Instead of being forthright with residents, they zigged and zagged around any attempt to make “the morris issue” transparent.
Are we asking too much by insisting that our elected officials follow these simple laws, that are meant to protect us, the residents, their constituents?
We happen to believe that they simply do not care for our opinion or input, and like the back door politicians of the 1950′s, they would rather have us butt out.
So what can we do?
Unfortunately, violating the Brown Act is a misdemeanor of which no one ever has been convicted. Many cities simply choose to ignore it, or interpret it to meet their own agenda, without any consequences.
We can continue to keep a close eye on the councils actions to ensure that they carry out the oath of which they swore.
We can support those who have bravely spoken out against the council for the benefit of us all.
We can support City Staff, whom because of our voting, have to deal with this inept leadership on a daily basis.
We can take back our city, by supporting and voting for individuals who will make decisions that best serve our city, rather than their political benefactors.
Lastly, we would like to thank the Patterson Irrigator, for not letting this story die, without a local newspaper, events like this would never be brought to light. If you haven’t read the article, please click here.
OldTimer said,
November 5, 2009 @ 11:00 AM
Well put. I read the article on the irrigator’s website and was pleased to see them keep it in front of the community. (I also read ptownmessenger’s post and want to thank them too!!!)
Not to be too much of the devil’s advocate, but we also need to be careful for what we ask.
I have heard through the grapevine that an acquaintance of mine is considering running for mayor. His wife is actually already lobbying for support for his run. I personally know this man rather well and can honestly say that if anyone is very liberal, and very special interest friendly, it is this man. He is very developer friendly and already has some influential (rich) backers, one of which is currently backing some of the members of the current council. He would not hesitate to ask “what’s in it for me” when being lobbied for something in front of the council. He wouldn’t even try to hide it. He would be open about it.
I won’t say more on the issue at this time, except to say that as we move towards the elections, we really need to make sure that for all our issues with the current slate, we don’t put ourselves in a worse position. Yes, things are pretty bad, but they actually could get worse.
(OldTimer steps off his soapbox.)
The Patterson Irritator said,
November 5, 2009 @ 5:51 PM
The most astonishing part of the city’s failure to allow for public comment was Mayor Campo’s reason….she said it would take all day for everyone to speak! We think someone needs to read her the Brown Act.
Patterson IrriTator Transcript:
Resident: “Becky shouldn’t you hear from the community first before you go back?”
Campo: “No…because we don’t want to be here all night long”
Resident: “We’re the community”
Campo: “I know, I know”
Then Smith begins her tirade.
blue state said,
November 5, 2009 @ 6:26 PM
This has been happening for years with Logan in charge. He’ll continue to say in his “opinion” the council conducted the meeting in accordance to the Brown Act.
This is the same attorney who said John Ramos (Chair) didn’t have a conflict on the GPAC.
This is the same attorney who said Willie Traina (Vice Chair) didn’t have conflict on the GPAC.
This is the same attorney who failed to advise the planning commission on the health care move.
This is the same attorney who advised us to seek litigation against the county and kamilos, costing us a few hundred thousand, feel free to add the new 27K.
This is the same attorney who see no conflict with half of the planning commission working in the Mayor’s building.
This is the same attorney that said Shelton HAD a conflict because of her work at a local nonprofit.
How can the council sit there with a straight face and scrutinize Morris, when the employee needing serious review is Logan.
Not worried about worse off candidates, not sure it can get any worse. Unless you have a name oldtimer.
william johnston said,
November 10, 2009 @ 7:44 AM
In the modesto bee article, the mayor says that she already discussed “concerns” about the city manager’s performance before it became an agenda item. Isn’t that another Brown Act Violation, shouldn’t these discussions be in a public forum, or closed session, and not private chats with the mayor.