Herbert Simmons Photo by: Andre Coleman

Altadena's Rules of Order

Simmons quits as controversy calls into question the function of the Altadena Town Council

By André Coleman 12/17/2009

Like it? Tweet it! SHARE IT!

Each June, Altadenans cast votes for candidates running for seats on the 16-member Altadena Town Council. The ATC doesn’t really have any authority to spend money or make final decisions, although it does provide advice on such things as development, education and law enforcement to Supervisor Mike Antonovich, whose district includes this mountainside portion of unincorporated LA County.
 
But, as illustrated by the recent case of former member Herbert Simmons — who quit his post Tuesday afternoon before his colleagues could hold a meeting that night and possibly expel him from the council for alleged ethics violations in promoting a student and teacher award program — the ATC is unlike most governing boards operating in LA County, exerting considerable public influence, yet remaining exempt from state public record, open meeting and financial disclosure laws that other groups of public officials in California must follow.
 
In fact, few, including some of its own members, are exactly clear about what the ATC — which currently conducts business not under the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act but its own set of bylaws — can and cannot do when it comes to dealing with other members, meeting in private and conducting community business.
 
An investigation by an ad hoc board committee found in November that Simmons actually did promote the educational awards program as an activity of the ATC, which it was not. Town Council Chair Gino Sund said the committee concluded Simmons misrepresented his program as an ATC program backed by Antonovich while collecting money from local businesses. 
 
The matter would have been moot had the ATC been following the Brown Act, which prohibits votes to remove elected officials, closed sessions for investigations of elected officials and treating elected officials as personnel and discussing their performances in closed session, said First Amendment expert Terry Francke of Californians Aware.
 
“First, it’s certainly true that the Brown Act does not apply to the Town Council, because it applies only to government organizations, and the Town Council is not that,” Francke wrote in a letter to Simmons, who had been pushing the council to follow the Brown Act after his alleged ethics violations were discussed in private. 
 
“I’m not sure what it is,” Francke continued, “since while it has quite formal bylaws, its Web site makes no mention of its being incorporated.”
 
According to Sund, the ATC doesn’t even really act as an advisory committee. Sund told the Weekly it operates at times more like an advocacy group or a watchdog group or a homeowner’s association, with the Town Council usually not even advising Antonovich, but instead going directly to various county agencies in order to meet local needs.
 
Having elected governing boards like the ATC decide issues in small communities is hardly a new idea. In nearby cities like La Cañada Flintridge, for instance, the formation of a town council was a first step toward cityhood. But that hasn’t been the case in Altadena. Instead, the ATC remains in a technically weak but still influential position, conducting taped monthly meetings at the Altadena Community Center.
 
“Technically, we don’t do anything a single individual can’t do; a single individual can call the supervisor’s office and say, ‘I need this or I need that,’” Sund said. “You cannot function as a volunteer, non-staffed and non-funded organization under the Brown Act. You get all kinds of requests and have to keep more records and we would probably need to retain an attorney. We walk a very fine line as it is. I think we are more in line with a homeowner’s association. I think it’s a mixed bag — many people see us as a city council and others think we are utterly useless. Our challenge is to communicate to the people what we do.”
 
Since it is not a government institution, ATC members are not required to comply with California’s Public Records Act, meaning that any minutes, videotapes of meetings, documents, records, emails and financial records could be legally kept from the public. 
 
Like Simmons, former member Steve Lamb, who served on the council for 18 years, also tried to get the council to comply with state open meeting laws in an effort to promote transparency.  
 
“When I was on the Town Council, I tried to get us to comply with the Brown Act and the Public Records Act,” Lamb told the Weekly. “Nobody liked that much. I don’t even think I got a second on the motion.”
 
As Francke points out in his letter to Simmons, Sund’s speculations about possible legal exposure the ATC could face for following the law are groundless.
 
“The Brown Act creates no civil liability in damages against the agency, its employees or its governing body members for violations of its rules. Civil actions are confined to establishing that a violation has occurred, preventing one from occurring, or overturning an action taken in violation of some of its central provisions,” Francke wrote. “As for criminal prosecution, there have been about five or six initiated in the Brown Act’s 56-year history. Only one went to trial, and it resulted in a hung jury. … Realistically, criminal jeopardy under the Brown Act is a myth.”
 
But the fact is, said Lamb, “I don’t think the public is even aware of what’s going on and most people who do figure out what’s going on refuse to get involved, because they think it’s a joke. They claim to represent you, but they don’t have to be transparent.”
According to Lamb, Simmons was not the first council member to bend or break a rule. Lamb pointed to a situation nearly four years ago, when ATC’s then-Chair Ken Balder traveled to Gilroy, along with Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard and Sierra Madre’s mayor, to meet with Edwin Diaz, then a prospect for Pasadena Unified School District superintendent.
 
Lamb called for an investigation into Balder’s trip, representing the council without prior approval — a violation of the board’s bylaws, which required prior discussion. But council members refused to hear the matter.
 
“They hold themselves out as public officials, but they don’t have to be transparent,” Lamb Said.
 
But even if the ATC were following the Brown Act, that would not have mitigated Simmons’ alleged violations; it would just have forced a more transparent discussion and limited the council’s response to any perceived improprieties.
 
The ATC was formed in 1975, shortly after passage of a statewide initiative forcing small towns to either adopt cityhood or declare themselves inside the “sphere of influence” of a nearby city. Locals worried that Pasadena would convince state leaders that Altadena was under its sphere of influence and use the issue to finally annex the small community — something it had been trying to do since at least 1904, according to historian and former ATC member Michele Zack.
 
Those fears were partially quelled in 1980, when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors declared Altadena to be in its own sphere of influence. La Cañada Flintridge was soon strong enough to become its own city, incorporating in 1976. But today, Altadena is nowhere near incorporation, which allows the ATC to remain a nongovernmental agency, despite holding elections. 
 
“The council seems more conservative and less progressive than the people I know living in Altadena,” Zack told the Weekly. “Early on, I was told by the chairman of the Town Council that the Arroyo Seco watershed was not an issue for the Town Council. It’s that kind of thinking that is not enlightened.”
 
In a letter to the paper, Simmons wrote that he will no longer be part of “an organization that does not operate as legitimate government and that is not open, transparent and accountable to the community. … I pray that the Altadena Town Council learns from this experience and in turn legitimizes itself and becomes a truly representative government for the community.” 

DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT

Like it? Tweet it!

Other Stories by André Coleman

Related Articles

Comments

Interesting story, and accurate overall, I think. I must however correct the last quote from myself (Michele Zack). The Town Council Chair told me the watershed was NOT AN ISSUE IN ALTADENA — a much broader statement than "not an issue for the Town Council." This comment was unenlightened then; in light of damage to the watershed from the Station Fire, and the floods and mudslides we face as a direct result, it is clearly preposterous. This illustrates what I meant when I said the Town Council seems more conservative and less progressive than the folks I know who live in Altadena.

Michele Zack

posted by michele zack on 12/17/09 @ 12:55 p.m.

Great article. It might be a good time for the ATC to reach out to the community, explain its value to Altadenans, and insist on transparency.

posted by altadenan on 12/17/09 @ 05:01 p.m.

Zack is correct. It is obvious that the town council is not interested in watershed issues. The council approved Monte Cedro, the densely populated, luxury development which will result in the loss of important open acreage. Open acreage is good for the watershed because it prevents water run-off and flooding; and replenishes the water table.

Although Zack appreciated the importance of open acreage when she advocated for the pocket park at Woodbury and Marengo (a great project), she took a different position when as a council member, she voted to approve the Monte Cedro project, instead of proposing an alternate use for the land which would have protected and enhanced the watershed.

Although the council has no real power, it has great influence. The Monte Cedro developer did all they could to court the council whose unanimous approval they took to the county planning commission as "evidence" that the community approved of the new development.

posted by Betty Harris on 12/17/09 @ 06:59 p.m.

Altadena is populated by kooks, misfits, and mediocre "artists," "writers," and "historians" with little or no recognition outside of Altadena and who don't have much going for themselves except an inflated sense of self-importance. So it's only natural that this bunch would get their panties all in a bunch over a town council that has no real legal power over anything. LOL

posted by Robert Hurley on 12/17/09 @ 09:23 p.m.

We do have laws in our country protecting legal rights of things like property ownership. Scripps was a private institution, and remained so when it merged with Episcopal Homes and the new project was christened Monte Cedro. Before any of its residents left Altadena for Alhambra, not only did I visit Scripps several times to talk to residents and family members (I got angry calls from the manger about "upsetting people"), I walked the entire area to talk to people, leaving a flyer at each home, in case anyone wanted to contact me on this issue. I was surprised that I did not get one negative comment, everyone seemed to think it was a good idea and acceptable land use of this property. I found this astonishing, but since I asked people how they felt, thought I should believe them. I did go on the record several times warning that this new project was an entirely different animal than Scripps, and again, on the record, repeatedly asked for Episcopal Homes to spell how precisely how they intended to carry out their "charitable mission." Only at the very end of the process and more than a year of very public discussions (the Episcopal folks held at least 4 public meetings, put flyers at every home within 1000 feet, and came to Town Council to discuss their intentions) did opposition to Monte Cedro galvanize. As my position on the Town Council was to represent constituents, and I had done more than due diligence in seeking public opinion, did I vote for this project. I still believe that it is a not bad project, (although not the homey and charitably-inclined Scripps), quite well-designed, and it would serve Altadena's aging population. It would also help give life to commercial activity along Lake, and is well served by public transit. It is rather naive of Betty Harris (above comment) to think it possible take a piece of private property adjacent downtown worth millions, wave a wand over it, and magically turn it into a watershed park! I do wish people would pay more attention at the planning stages of developments, and not wait until the thing is about to come down, to speak up in opposition.

posted by michele zack on 12/18/09 @ 07:58 a.m.

The Michele Zack posts sound like a lot of political double-talk to me and representative of the classic conflicts of interests that are endemic to the town council! Another example of why the council should be disbanded!

posted by Ramon Hernandez on 12/18/09 @ 09:47 a.m.

We live near the Monte Cedro development which we oppose. We never received any communication from Michele Zack regarding this densely populated luxury project. Our neighbors never received anything either. In fact, during the entire time Zack was on the council, we never received any type of communication from her about anything. The only thing we hear about Zack has to do with her book promotions and when she is quoted in the newspaper as a "historian."

Once this Simmons issue was brought to the public's attention, we soon realized that getting elected to the council is the perfect opportunity for anyone in the community to increase their visibility, promote their business or other project, whether for profit or not. And this is all perfectly legal.

Simmons angered his fellow council members by not running his ideas by them first and going directly to the people.

posted by Patterson Family on 12/18/09 @ 02:19 p.m.

I want to know why the same people are always quoted in these Altadena controversies: Simmons, Sund, Zack, and Lamb! Are theirs the only opinions that matter?

posted by Ramon Hernandez on 12/19/09 @ 06:24 p.m.

Zack defends the Monte Cedro development. Oh how we are not surprised. This is so typical of individuals who are elected to the council and use their position to market themselves. This is not the first time Zack was accused of having a conflict of interest. (She received $$ from PUSD yet voted on PUSD issues brought before the ATC.) And, if you read the minutes on the Altadena Town Council website, she regularly used council meetings to promote her film and other projects; conduct that is clearly not that of an "enlightened progressive."

Herbert Simmons has clarified what we have known all along: the Altadena Town Council is not legally required to be accountable to those who have elected its members and serves no other purpose than to promote and enrich developers and the personal projects and businesses of its members.

posted by Betty Harris on 12/21/09 @ 08:21 a.m.
Post A Comment

Requires free registration.

(Forgotten your password?")