Public comments and the Brown Act

Barry Krugel addresses our board

December 15:

UPDATE: OCTA Tweaks its Public Comment Policy (Voice of OC; Dec. 16)

     As you know, the board of trustees of the South Orange County Community College District has had a colorful history with the “Brown Act,” California’s open meetings law.
     You remember the Brown Act. The point of that law is to promote accountability, and, more specifically, to insure that the people’s business is done in the open, not in secret. Thus it demands that discussion topics (for meetings of such “legislative bodies” as college or school boards, city councils, boards of supervisors, etc.) be descriptively agendized and that agendas be made available well prior to meetings; that board members not meet and discuss board business in secret; that only some issues be discussed in closed session; etc.
     Back in 1997 and ’98, our board engaged in “persistent and defiant” misconduct relative to this law. We warned them about that. They blew us off. We sued ‘em. We won. They were pretty nasty about it. They trumped up charges against me and made moves to get me fired. I sued 'em again, etc.

Paradigm sh*t

     Did I mention that John Williams is an a**hole? According to several declarations (including his own), that guy actually tried to hammer out secret deals between trustees and administrators. Paradigmatic assholery.
     Since those bad old days, at least up through the end of the Mathur/Wagner era, the board has mostly followed the law, albeit often begrudgingly and minimally. It is often unclear what SOCCCD agenda items mean. Sometimes, with a slight effort, an item’s full meaning could be made clear, but no.
     And, sometimes, the board hides things.
     Take, for instance, the odd way in which trustees’ requests for attending conferences are indicated. The agenda item for the December 2010 meeting is typical: it includes an Exhibit A. There, we read “Trustees wishing to attend,” followed by, not trustee names, but brief descriptions of events plus the cost per person. (Huh?) We are not told who wishes to attend these events or how many trustees seek to attend.
     It appears that this odd template (it's been used many times before) is designed to obscure precisely that information.
     Well, now that John’s gone, maybe such obfuscation will cease. The phrase “trustees wishing to attend” should be followed by the names of trustees—plus what they seek to attend, and how much it will cost. Sheesh!
     But we’ve got a new chancellor, and I expect big things from him, including moves toward greater openness and honesty.
     Today, I noticed that we (in the district community) got some sort of notification of agenda items for the next board meeting. Not sure what that’s all about, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Hear, hear!

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

     The Brown Act is about accountability, and so it has something to say about “public comments” at meetings. Obviously, it clears the way for members of the community to address the board, but boards have a way of throwing in hurdles and detours and even roadblocks. For instance, it is common to ask those who wish to address the board to fill out a slip or form that requests various kinds of information that a speaker might not wish to divulge.
     At the SOCCCD, speakers are asked to fill out orange slips. I think they only ask for the speaker’s name and the topic that he or she wishes to address.
     In today’s Voice of OC, we learn that at least one local “legislative body” screws up the public comments thing, Brown-Actwise. And it appears that, to a lesser extent, our board gets it wrong, too:

You Don't Need a Blue Card to Speak Your Mind (Voice of OC)

     The blue cards that the Orange County Transportation Authority gives members of the public to fill out before they can comment during meetings violate California's open meeting law, according to open government expert Terry Francke.
     OCTA lawyer Ken Smart said speakers are "not required" to fill out the cards with information including their names, addresses, telephone numbers and affiliations.
     But in no way does the agency tell potential speakers that giving OCTA that information is voluntary.
     "When the government hands you a form to fill out, the usual assumption by most people is you have to fill it out," said Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware (http://www.calaware.org/home.php) and Voice of OC's open government consultant. "If they don't tell you it's voluntary, you're going to assume that it's not.". . .
     Francke said "If they (members of the public) have something to say to the government, they do not need, under the Brown Act or any other law, to disclose who they are," he said.
     And, he said, the Legislature recognized that people might feel they are required to fill out a form, if it is given to them. He said state law requires public agencies that have a sign-in roster to specifically "advise the public of their right not to sign.. . .
     The right way for government agencies to plan for public speakers, [Franke] said, is to ask them to simply write which item on the agenda they wish to address, without giving their name or any other information. That way, the presiding officer knows how many speakers are interested in a specific issue and can plan for large numbers who may want to speak without violating the Brown Act….

Bolstering national security

     I do think that we are entering a new day in the district. (I can just see the Reb rolling her eyes at my unbridled optimism!) Things are gonna improve, you wait and see!
     So let’s get this “public comment” thing right and start producing agendas that try to inform the public of how this district spends its half billion bucks per year.

See also House Votes to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Loretta Sanchez Says Gay Soldiers Can Bolster National Security (OC Weekly)