Time out
Brown Act expert says city broke law with short-notice meeting to cut budget
By André Coleman 12/01/2011
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Other Stories by André Coleman
Related Articles
Comments
If 24 hours notice was required, and the notice was posted more than 4 days before the meeting, how is this a violation? The article says that the notice was given on November 23, and the meeting was not until November 28. Should they make it a week whenever turkey is involved?
Vivavilla;
Posting notice in a "lockbox" (e.g., ANY government-managed space that is periodically maintained "off-limits" to any local population by that same government) at the end of the business day where the general public has no discretionary opportunity to review its established schedule IS a willful breach of the Brown Act if the posted meeting then happens at the beginning of the next government workday.
Is this what happened?
In government-speak, "24-hour notice" should be 24 government work-hours. In other words, City Hall -- where these postings are formally advertised -- officially opens up to the great unwashed masses at eight o'clock in the morning and closes at around five or so. So, that would begin nine hours of the first day. The same thing happens on the second full work day, which brings the total up to eighteen hours. Six hours into the third day officially becomes the 24-hour notice that is required of the Brown Act.
Of course, establishing a "public-notice" space that can be accessed by the public 24 hours a day where these messages to the people would mandatorily be posted (and the actual posting times inclusively advertised) sounds just a little too effective to me for Pasadena City government ... or does that place exist and "we" just don't know about it?
Also of course, all this really depends upon just how honest our government really is.
DanD
DanD I am always with you and your comments are always thoughtful. As one who looks for these notices, I always find them in the City Hall rotunda, posted for all to see at the Garfield side, which is open to the public 24/7. Also, I think that they are emailed out to media and others who have requested them. Also, the Brown Act does not say anything about 24 business hours and just says 24 hours. If they wanted to pull a fast one, they could have legally posted Sunday morning. There are plenty of serious issues around for the media to dig into, here 4+ days notice does not seem to be one of them. Keep fighting the good fight!
Vivavilla;
Well, to keep beating this horse that ain't quite dead yet, Andre's article states that the meeting was "posted online at 9 p.m. Nov. 23 — the night before a four-day City Hall shutdown in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday." Now, it is my presumption that Andre did indeed do his homework and that the presumptive fact remains that no physical posting on paper of this same meeting had also been accomplished in the rotunda at City Hall at least 24 hours before the meeting occurred.
In other words, the only posting of this meeting had occurred -- late at night when most good children are already in bed -- on the City's website, where all us oldtimers who think that computers are the Devil's playground may refuse to use that particular venue because of religious objections ... or whatever.
Anyway, is it true? for this particular meeting, did the City fail to post it beyond cyberspace where all of Pasadena's homeless inhabitants could have visual access to it at least 24 hours before the meeting occurred?
Ultimately, what's the litmus qualification of "access?"
DanD
Dear DanD, 4+ days actual notice where only 24 hours is called for requires a lot of hair splitting, assumptions and presumptions to even make it seem like an issue. What was hidden from the public? The fact that there is a financial crisis? That surely is not a secret. 4+ days of actual notice is not playing fast and loose with the Brown Act. This horse is beaten and gone.
Actually Vivavilla,
This is a big deal ... it is called "following the letter of the law." This article by Andre apparently relates that the only place this public meeting -- which by the city manager's own admission was quite exceptional in the decisions that were accomplished -- was posted for public notice ONLY on the City's website, three hours before midnight on the eve of a major United States, four-day-long holiday of sports-team worshipping and beer-swilling.
Now, is this how ALL public-meeting notices are accomplished? Apparently not, "according to one free speech and open government advocate," for whom the Pasadena Weekly editorial staff must believe is not just speaking out of his ass. So when we talk about the city giving public notice of its meeting schedule, we (of course) are by default also expressing our presumption that our city administrators are going to give EVERYONE who has a right to know ADEQUATE public notice. Well, since not everyone owns or otherwise uses a computer, just giving notice on some government website run by the city IS NOT adequate notice.
Again, was this particular public meeting given the same extensive brand of "notice" that all other public meetings receive? And if not, WHY? Was there also any other decisions made at this particular meeting on subjects that had not originally been scheduled to be considered, at the beginning of a work week and at an ungodly, early-morning hour where most people were still either puking out the holiday leftovers or otherwise sucking down there own brands of hangover remedies?
Tell me Vivavilla, did you personally see any notice of this particular meeting posted at the City Hall rotunda at any time prior-and-right-up-to the 24-hour-prior mandate? Another thing, how many "usual-suspects" of the public's public meeting crowd actually attended this particular gathering of decision-makers? And also, WHY schedule this particular meeting where such important issues were being decided on during the earliest morning hours of the work week's dawn RIGHT AFTER a major holiday of super-heavy partying?
Sounds too much to me like somebody was trying to fly something nefarious under the radar.
DanD
DanD. If someone in government were to say that posting a sign at city hall is better public notice than posting on the internet, you would laugh in their face.
Hey, what's the worry? From this missive, it seems that the people behind the horseshoe can administer the public's business so much more efficiently without all that hassle caused by public participation ... .
DanD