Thursday, October 20, 2005

CURING AND CORRECTING?

As you know, last month, the board violated the Brown Act. On the 13th, it held a closed session (in the "Catalina Room" of a hotel in Dana Point) and discussed matters that were not agendized, thereby robbing citizens of their opportunity and right to weigh in on the topic prior to board discussion and decision-making. Further, it discussed matters that are not allowed in closed session.

Hey, the whole idea of "open meeting" laws like the Ralph M. Brown Act is to make "legislative bodies" do their work in the open, to the degree possible! No secrets! That means you, John!

Well, it now appears that, at the Monday board meeting, the Board will "cure or correct" its violation(s). At least, that's how I interpret item 20 of the agenda for Monday's meeting. (See.) I'm not sure. I mean, what else could be going on?


I'm impressed!

For a fuller account of the Board's history re the Brown Act, see "The Board of Secrets" in the Archives (September 27). (Go to the upper right of this site: Archives, September.)

UPDATE! (I.e., "Uh-Oh")

I Just looked up 54960.1 (to which agenda item 20 refers) . 54960.1 says:

54960.1 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter. The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency.

A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a defendant in any action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of such action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit.


I am no longer impressed. Given the portion of the Brown Act the Chancellor cites, it appears that the Board intends, not to cure or correct, but to pass a resolution according to which the recent "demand of cure or correct" is unwarranted, and that any litigation along those lines would be "clearly frivolous."

Translation: if you pursue this, you'll have to pay our attorney fees. And that's big money.

Say hello to the ol' "deep pockets" strategy! (Am I wrong?) --CW

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is this a put on? Who do these trustees of yours thing they are?

Rebel Girl said...

This is not a put on. The board, it seems, plans to send the message that, if you pursue this "Brown Act" business, you'll be liable for attorney fees. In the meantime, the district has very deep pockets (hell, they're sittin' on tens of millions of taxpayer dollars). If you look at the law, you'll notice that the trustees are NOT liable in any way (to pay attorney fees)--even if the district loses in court. Nice, isn't it?

--Of course, I could be wrong about what they intend to do. But read the piece of the law they cite.

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...