City councils, school districts and other local jurisdictions now have the option of becoming a lot more secretive — if they choose.
Last month, the state Legislature suspended the Brown Act mandate that local jurisdictions post meeting agendas for the public. The suspension, a cost-cutting measure, also allows local jurisdictions to forgo reporting to the public about actions taken during closed-session meetings.
"(T)his suspension will not change the way the city conducts its business and the city will continue to follow the Brown Act as a matter of public policy," said Hercules City Manager Steve Duran.
As for the rest of California, it is unknown how many municipalities will choose to abandon the right-to-know mandates.
The League of California Cities is expected to release an official statement on the issue this week, but the organization’s Communications Director Eva Spiegel said for now the suggestion to cities is “stick with the status quo."
“The League has been very involved with the Brown Act,” she said. “We have always encouraged transparency.”
The move is to save money. In California, mandates on local jurisdictions are state-funded. Brown Act mandates have been costing the state at estimated $100 million a year.
According to watchdog Californians Aware, local jurisdictions learned how to milk the system.
They “could get a windfall of cash for doing something they had always done: preparing and posting meeting agendas for their governing and other bodies as mandated by Brown Act amendments passed in 1986 — but as, in fact, routinely done anyway since time immemorial to satisfy practical and political expectations,” the nonprofit reported Friday.
For example, in Murrieta, a more than 100,000-population city in southern California's Riverside County, in fiscal year 2010 the city's claim for Brown mandates was $24,418, which was not nearly as high as fiscal year 2006 when it reached $36,425.
Murrieta City Attorney Leslie Devaney said the issue is just now getting the attention of local jurisdictions, and there is still sorting out to do. Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has introduced a Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 7) that would ask California voters if they want the transparency. The amendment is stalled in committee.
"To anyone who's been watching this issue for a while, the real news is not that the Brown Act can be so dependent on the state budget," said Terry Franke, a California media law expert who is General Counsel, Californians Aware. "The real news is that 17 people in Sacramento are denying the public the chance to say 'Enough'."
A version of this story first appeared on the .
Perhaps the reimbursement costs are the same as with any government program. Never close to reality. Remember the $80 hammers for the defense dept of years ago. Hammers don't cost $80 esp when purchased in bulk. So, maybe the cities have jacked up the "costs" for complying with the Brown Act to get $$ from the state and of course we have to pay for the state employees and their compensations that process the info etc.
For example, Contra Costa County claimed more than $1.1 million between 2002 and 2004 for costs associated with printing and posting public meeting agendas in advance of county meetings. But state auditors found [PDF] last year that all but about $200,000 of those costs were overbilled." Yes, the $80 hammer, and they're not using the difference to hide Area 51.
Also, our city has not adhered to the brown act in many ways so saying we will keep it is kinda sly.