Dear Mr.
Weber:
The general
rule when a court applies a statute like the Brown Act is that if the statute
is clear, then the court should not look to legislative intent. See,
e.g., Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co.,
42
In any
event, the only legislative history I could find of the amendment to the Brown
Act that added the words "before or during the committee's
consideration of the item," (SB No. 100, 1991 Reg. Sess.),
does not shed much light on the issue:
Under
existing provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the actions of legislative
bodies of local agencies are required to be taken openly and their
deliberations are required to be conducted openly. Under this existing law,
every agenda for regular meetings is required to provide an opportunity for
members of the public to directly address the legislative body on items of
interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body. However, in the case of a city council or board of
supervisors, that opportunity need not be provided if an opportunity to address
a committee of the council or board considering the item has been provided,
unless the item has been substantially changed.
This bill
would provide that the opportunity of the public to be heard on an item shall
be provided before or during the consideration of that item by the legislative
body or committee of the legislative body.
1991 Cal ALS 66
Sorry not
to be able to provide anything along the lines you were looking for. Good
luck.
Sincerely,
Katherine
Keating
Katherine Keating
Holme Roberts & Owen
LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2994
415-268-1972 (Direct); 415-268-1999 (Fax)
katherine.keating@hro.com
From: halweber@earthlink.net [mailto:halweber@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: Katherine Keating
Cc: Francke - Terry; Scheer-
Peter
Subject: RE: Hotline Form Submission (Our Ref. No. 51221-00010)
Katherine:
Thank you
for your reply to my Hotline Submission.
Without
providing legal advice, can you tell me the intent of the authors of
Brown Act Section 54954.3 (a) " Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide
an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative
body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of
the item, ........"
Was the intent
of the authors to allow a legislative body to select EITHER
"before" OR "during" for permitting the public to
address the legislative body, or was the intent of the authors
to allow the public to address the body BOTH "before" AND
"during" agenda items, despite the actual wording?
Sincerely,
Harold
Weber
-----
Original Message -----
From: Katherine Keating
Sent:
Subject: RE: Hotline Form Submission (Our
Ref. No. 51221-00010)
Dear
Mr. Weber:
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP is general
counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds
to First Amendment Coalition hotline inquiries. In responding to these
inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech
issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.
Thank you for your message,
which I assume you sent for informational purposes
only. Best of luck.
Sincerely,
Katherine Keating
Katherine Keating
Holme Roberts & Owen
LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2994
415-268-1972 (Direct); 415-268-1999 (Fax)
katherine.keating@hro.com
-----Original Message-----
From: halweber@earthlink.net [mailto:halweber@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: hotline@cfac.org
Subject: Hotline Form Submission
The form below was
submitted by halweber@earthlink.net from Ip address:
67.142.130.13 on
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
name: Harold G. Weber (Hal)
address:
business:
city:
state: CA
zip: 91203-1114
phone: 818-547-1296
email: halweber@earthlink.net
Have_checked_Q&A?: Yes
member: No
haveused: No
ifyes: The same.
message: I have sent the following e-mail to Glendale
City Attorney Scott Howard regarding what I believe is a violation of the Brown
Act by Mayor Frank Quintero:
Copies to: Mayor Frank Quintero, Council Members John Drayman, Laura
Friedman, Ara Najarian and
Dave Weaver, and City Manager Jim Starbird
Reference: California
Attorney General Opinion No. 92-212,
From the above reference:
“(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members
of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest
to the public, before or during the legislative body\'s consideration of the
item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,
provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda
unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section
54954.2. However, in the case of a meeting of a city council in a city or a
board of supervisors in a city and county, the agenda need not provide an
opportunity for members of the public to address the council or board on any
item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of
members of the council or board, at a public meeting wherein all interested
members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on
the item, before or during the committee\'s consideration of the item, unless
the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as
determined by the council or board.”
According to the above
content from Opinion No. 92-212 by Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren, Mayor Frank Quintero has been violating this
provision of the Brown Act by refusing to allow members of the public to
address the Glendale City Council on agenda items unless they announce their
desire to do so before consideration of the item commences. Members of
the public have no way of knowing beforehand everything that is going to come
up during an agenda item presentation to which they may take exception, and
therefore wish to address the council. For that reason it is essential
that members of the public be allowed to announce their desire to speak on an
agenda item during its presentation.
Please advise Mayor
Quintero that his newly invented method of denying the public its right to
address the city council is a violation of the Brown Act.
Sincerely,
Hal Weber, (halweber@earthlink.net)
Submit: Submit
protectwebformcode: poloce