HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.4 Grand Jury Interim Report y 640-90
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 11 , 1989
SUBJECT Alameda County Grand Jury Interim Report
(Prepared By Richard C. Ambrose , City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter From Alameda County Grand Jury ,
Dated November 1 , 1989
Interim Report From Alameda County Grand Jury ,
Dated October 26 , 1989
RECOMMENDATION VVConsider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION The City of Dublin has received a copy of the Interim
Report issued by the Alameda County Grand Jury on October 26 , 1989 . In that
report , the Grand Jury has recommended that legislative bodies covered by
the Brown Act and located partially or wholly within Alameda County pass a
resolution directing their respective legal counsel to at all times
interpret Government Code Section 54950 through 54961 in favor of open
meetings and against closed door meetings .
Staff has discussed the Grand Jury ' s report with the City Attorney ' s office .
The City Attorney has indicated that she believes there is no need for such
a resolution in the City of Dublin . Further , that the City Attorney ' s
office has historically advised the Council correctly on those issues that
are appropriate closed session issues for discussion under the Brown Act .
If the Council is in favor of adopting such a resolution , the Council should
direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to be forwarded to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court no later than January 24 , 1990.
If the City Council does not believe such a resolution is necessary , the
City must so indicate in writing to the Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
ITEM N0. L/ COPIES TO :
Mt y OF 4,
40 J
1
�'
GRAND JURY �''
�0 4 iJ IJ ;JVJ
County of Alameda ,p!
November 1, 1989
To Special Districts, School Districts and City Councils within Alameda County
Dear Director:
Enclosed please find an Interim Report issued by the Alameda County Grand
Jury on October 26, 1989.
Under Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code, any public agency subject
to the Grand Jury's review must respond to the Grand Jury reports within 90
days of submission. Your responses and comments should be directed to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Sincerely,
Marvin R. Smith, Foreman
Alameda County Grand Jury
MRS:ns
1401 Lakeside Drive,Suite 1104,Oakland,CA 94612(415)272-6259
`oJNt OF 44,M
fO
GRAND JURY
County of Alameda
C40FORT41"
INTERIM REPORT
October 26, 1989
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
Administration Building
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Board Members:
Recommendation by Alameda County Grand Jury
on compliance with the Brown Act
In 1953, the California State Legislature passed the Brown Act. (Government
Code §54950 through 54961.) The stated legislative intent was to assure that
all elected and appointed government agencies covered by the Act conducted
their business openly and in public whenever possible.
It was not long after the passage of the Brown Act that the Alameda County Grand
Jury and the Alameda County District Attorney's office began to receive complaints
from concerned citizens that various boards and legislative bodies were violating
the Brown Act. These letters of complaint usually asked the Grand Jury or the
District Attorney's office to institute criminal action against the board or council
members of the violating agency under Government Code §54959.
Investigation into these complaints showed a variety of factual situations. Most
often it showed that the agency was in fact discussing a subject matter which
could legally be handled behind closed doors but one which could also have been
discussed in- open session. These situations arose when the general category of
the discussion was covered by one of the Brown Act exceptions to open meetings,
(legal, personnel negotiation, etc.) but where the reasons for the exception did
not exist.
There seemed to be a tendency on the part of many agencies to go behind closed
doors whenever the subject matter of the discussion fit into one of the general
categories which allowed such action to take place out of public view. As a result,
the public perception was that the public agency had something to hide, and that
the agency was violating the Brown Act.
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104,Oakland, CA 94612(415)272-6259
Board of Supervisors Page 2 October 26, 1989
Since most public agencies covered by the Brown Act profess a desire to hold
open meetings whenever possible, the 1989-90 Grand Jury recommends that: All
legislative bodies covered by the Brown Act and located partially or wholly within
Alameda County pass a resolution directing their respective legal counsel to at
all times interpret Government Code §54950 through 54961 in favor of open
meetings and against closed-door meetings. Such a resolution should result in
more open and public meetings by limiting the closed-door sessions of these
legislative bodies to instances where the reasons for the closed sessions outweigh
the public's need to be present.
Sincerely,
v mith, Foreman
Alam da County Grand Jury
MRS:ns