State Allows Cities To Become Less Transparent

Cities 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—cities, counties, school districts, water districts and special districts—post meeting agendas for the public.

The suspension also allows local jurisdictions to forgo reporting to the public about actions taken during closed-session meetings.

How many California municipalities will choose to abandon the transparency mandates is unknown. 

The League of California Cities is expected to release an official statement on the issue within the next 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.”

How the state came to the decision of suspending the Brown Act mandates boiled down to one thing: money.

In California, mandates placed on local jurisdictions by Sacramento must be funded by the state. In the case of the Brown Act mandates, the state was subsidizing nearly $100 million a year, by some estimates.

So, in an effort to cut expenditures, the state decided to suspend the mandates. 

But according to the watchdog organization 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.

Californians Aware is a group that tries to foster improvement of, compliance with, and public understanding and use of, public forum law, which deals with what rights citizens have to know what is going in in government.

State 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 currently 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 the general counsel for Californians Aware. "The real news is that 17 people in Sacramento are denying the public the chance to say 'Enough'."

In the meantime, the suspension could last through 2015, so it appears the public will need to demand transparency from its representatives if it wants to stay informed.

Patch is currently contacting City officials to ask where they plan to continue publishing meeting agendas, minutes and reports of closed sessions. Patch will publish a local update to this article as soon as possible.

PATCH WANTS TO KNOW - What do you think? Do you think it's important for our City government to continue its transparency by publishing such agendas, meetings and reports? Or do you think they're mostly unread or unused? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.