Tulelake, CA— Agenda items and hearings by responsible parties placing them there, plus false arrests
1. Procedural due process – refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced. The indispensable requisites of this aspect of due process are the requirements of notice and hearing.
2. Substantive due process – requires that the law itself is fair, reasonable and just. In other words, no person should be deprived of his life, liberty, or property for arbitrary reasons or on flimsy grounds.
CHAPTER I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 549501 et seq., hereinafter “the Brown Act,” or “the Act”) governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the Legislature has established a presumption in favor of public access. As the courts have stated, the purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies. (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 555.) To these ends, the Brown Act imposes an “open meeting” requirement on local legislative bodies. (§ 54953 (a); Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116.)
A. Agenda Requirement
At least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting, the body must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item to be discussed or transacted at the meeting,including items to be discussed in closed session. (§ 54954.2(a).) The Act makes it clear that discussion items must be placed on the agenda, as well as items which may be the subject of action by the body.
The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body. In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the court interpreted the agenda requirements set forth in section 966 of the Education Code. That section required “. . . [a] list of items that will constitute the agenda for all regular meetings shall be posted. . . .” (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199.) In interpreting this section, the court stated:
“In the instant case, the school board’s agenda contained as one item the language ‘Continuation school site change.’ This was entirely inadequate notice to a citizenry which may have been concerned over a school closure. “On this point alone, we think the trial court was correct because the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans. It would have taken relatively little effort to add to the agenda that this ‘school site change’ also included the discontinuance of elementary education at Canyon View and the transfer of those students to Ponderosa School.” (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 200, original emphasis; see also 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 84, 87 (1984).)
However, the Legislature in section 54954.2 placed an important gloss on the requirement to provide a brief general description. That section expressly provides that the brief general description generally need not exceed 20 words in length. Thus, absent special circumstances, the legislative body may use a short description of less than 20 words to provide essential information about the item to members of the public. Where necessary, legislative bodies are free to provide a more detailed description, but as a general rule, they need not feel any obligation to do so (for more information about closed-session agenda description, see discussion infra).
In 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 327, 331-332 (1995), this office concluded that the 72-hour notice requirement mandates local agencies to post their notices in locations which are accessible 24 hours a day for the 72 hours prior to the meeting. Accordingly, notices cannot be placed in buildings which are locked for some portion of the 72 hours immediately prior to the meeting. The agenda requirement does not apply when certain unnoticed topics are discussed at a noticed meeting. For example, there is an exception for when a member of the body or a member of its staff, on his or her own initiative, or in response to a question from the public, asks a question for clarification, makes a brief announcement or makes a brief report on his or her own activities. (§ 54954.2(a).) In addition, any member of the body or the body as a whole, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (§ 54954.2(a).) Section 54954.2 also contains specific procedures by which the agenda requirement may be avoided in other specified circumstances as well. (§ 54954.2(b).)
Government Code 911.6. (a) The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board. The claimant and the board may extend the period within which the board is required to act on the application by written agreement made before the expiration of the period.
"Administrative Claim" was filed against the city of Tulelake on December 22, 2014, dated December 19, 2014.
Written by James Garland of Tulelake News
PO Box 772
Tulelake, CA 96134-0772
Home Phone (530) 667-4744
Cell # (530) 708-7852
NOTE: Before posting comments click on link below
Comments
Post a Comment