Loading...
CC - Item 3I - Senate Bill 964• • ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C.~.` FROM: OLIVER C. CHI, INTERIM CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 964 SUMMARY On April 24, 2007, the City Council voted to oppose Senate Bill 964 (Attachment A). At the time, the measure proposed to make changes to the Brown Act to prohibit any staff member - including the City Manager and the City Attorney - from having serial communications with any member of the City Council. Since that time, the League of California Cities (League) has worked with the author of the legislation to make significant modifications and enhancements to the proposed bill. After a series of amendments, the bill now seeks to prohibit a majority of the members of a legislative body from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate or take action on any item of business that is required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) to be conducted in public. Based on these modifications, the League withdrew their "oppose" position to the measure and instead offered an official position of neutral. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council vote to reverse its initial position on SB 964 and taken an official position of "support" for the measure. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Attachment A: Senate Bill 964 10 APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: SB 964 Senate Bill - AMENDED BILL NUMBER: SB 964 AMENC~FF)e • BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 10, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 2, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Senator Romero FEBRUARY 23, 2007 An act to amend Section 54952.2 of, and to add Section 6252.7 to, the Government Code, relating to local agencies. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 964, as amended, Romero. Local agencies. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act prohibits any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item, with an exception for an authorized teleconference. An appellate court in Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 533 held that a violation of this prohibition occurs only if a series of meetings by members of a body results in a collective concurrence. This bill would instead prohibit a majority of members of a legislative body of a local agency from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. It also would state the Legislature's declaration that it disapproves the holding of the court in the case named above to the extent it construes the prohibition on serial meetings and would state its intention that the changes made by this bill supersede that holding. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection and to make copies available upon request and payment of a fee unless they are exempt from disclosure. The Ralph M. Brown Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, agendas of public meetings and any other writings, when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body, are disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act unless exempt from disclosure under that act. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that these writings be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its legislative body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the members of a legislative body of a local agency are authorized to access a writing of the body or of the agency as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the local agency shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which writing or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available, and shall not charge any of those members a fee to inspect or obtain a copy of that writing. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/Bills/sen/sb 0951-1000/sb 964 bill 20070510 amended sen v95.htm1 Page 1 of 3 8/22/2007 SB 964 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 3 State-mandated local proc,r,jrr: 01 • THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature hereby declares that it disapproves the court's holding in Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 533, 545, fn. 6, to the extent that it construes the prohibition against serial meetings by a legislative body of a local agency, as contained in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to require that a series of individual meetings by members of a body actually result in a collective concurrence to violate the prohibition rather than also including the process of developing a collective concurrence as a violation of the prohibition. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes made by Section 3 of this act supersede the court's holding described in subdivision (a). SEC. 2. Section 6252.7 is added to the Government Code, to read: 6252.7. Notwithstanding Section 6252.5 or any other provision of law, when the members of a legislative body of a local agency are authorized to access a writing of the body or of the agency as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the local agency, as defined in Section 54951, shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which writing or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available, and shall not charge any of those members a fee to inspect or obtain a copy of that writing. SEC. 3. Section 54952.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" ms means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference locations as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body -ems (b) A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following: (1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person that do not violate subdivision (b). (2) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at a conference or similar gathering open to the public that involves a discussion of issues of general interest to the public or to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specified nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to allow members of the public free admission to a conference or similar gathering at which the organizers have required other participants or registrants to pay fees or charges as a condition of attendance. (3) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and publicized meeting organized to address a topic of local community concern by a person or organization other than the local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/Bills/sen/sb 0951-1000/sb 964 bill 20070510 amended sen v95.html 8/22/2007 SB 964 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 3 business of a specific nature t0 is within the sub-o'-t rncII-L>r 40 jurisdiction of the legislativ- rc~dy of the local agency. (4) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and noticed meeting of another body of the local agency, or at an open and noticed meeting of a legislative body of another local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled meeting, business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. (5) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at a purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. (6) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of that body, provided that the members of the legislative body who are not members of the standing committee attend only as observers. http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/Bills/sen/sb 0951-1000/sb 964 bill 20070510 amended sen v95.htm1 8/22/2007 • LFEAIGU E C ITI ES May 4, 2007 The Honorable Gloria Romero State Capitol Building, Room 313 Sacramento CA 95814 RE: SB 964 (Romero) Local Agencies Neutral Dear Senator Romero: • 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org On behalf of the 478 cities that the League of California Cities represent we want to thank you and your staff for the hard work on SB 964 (Romero). By al I parties agreeing to the amendments to the bill, the League has officially moved our position from Oppose to Neutral. We believe that with the changes to SB 964 is clearer. specific in its scope and does not leave ambiguity as a challenge. It is our hope that all stakeholders accomplished their goal to identify and prevent serial meetings. Our city officials who must abide by the rules and regulations of the Brown Act welcome such a new policy that will ensure that the public is a part of and most of all participates in the business done on their behalf. We thank you for your leadership in this area and your concern for good government. Your staff was absolutely tremendous and very easy to work with on this important piece of public policy and we can't praise them enough. As SB 964 moves through the legislature. it is our hope that if there are any issues that arise that we can work with you to resolve them. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to give my office a call at 916-658- 8279. Thank you. Yours truly, P. Anthony Thomas League of California Cities Cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Brian Weinberger, Consultant, Senate Local Government Committee Ryan Eisberg, Consultant, Republican Caucus