For City Council Meeting April 9, 2024
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David N. Carmany, City Manager
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
Title
Consideration of a letter in response to a Cease and Desist Letter received from the Channel Law Group. (ACTION)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
Approve the letter in response to a Cease and Desist Letter from the Channel Law Group.
Body
BACKGROUND:
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) is a California state law that governs the public's access to local government meetings and the decision-making process. Enacted in 1953, the act aims to ensure transparency and accountability in local government by requiring that meetings of local legislative bodies be open to the public. Under the Brown Act, agendas for meetings must be posted in advance, and members of the public have the right to attend meetings, participate in discussions, and address the governing body. The act also establishes rules regarding the conduct of meetings, including provisions for closed sessions under certain circumstances. Violations of the Brown Act can result in legal consequences, including invalidation of decisions made in violation of its provisions. Overall, the Brown Act promotes transparency, public participation, and accountability in local government processes in California.
At its January 9th Council meeting, acting upon the request of Councilmember Trujillo, the City Council voted 4 to 5 (Councilmember Baca voting no) to add consideration of a letter opposing proposed Assembly Bill 1000 to its agenda as new Tab 3. The City Council relied upon the exception in the Brown Act for items of subsequent need (Gov. Code § 54954.2(b)(2)) because the City Council only became aware of the opportunity to submit comments by January 10, 2024 to the Local Government Committee of the California State Assembly (“LGC”) regarding proposed Assembly Bill 1000. Councilmember Rafael Trujillo first learned of this opportunity on January 8, 2024, the day before the Council meeting, after the posting of the agenda on January 4, 2024 after he attended the meeting of a working group within the Cal Cities organization.
Therefore, because the Rialto City Council only learned of the opportunity to provide comments on January 8th and of necessity had to take action before January 10th, the Rialto City Council properly utilized the exception for items of subsequent need under subdivision (b)(2) of section 54954.2 of the Brown Act to add consideration of a comment letter regarding AB 1000 to its agenda for January 9th. The Rialto City Council also afforded an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the matter with Prince Ogidikpe, representatives of Assembly Member Eloise Gomez Reyes, and several members of the public, making comments on the item.
However, on March 14, 2024 the City received a Cease and Desist letter from attorney Jamie T Hall of the Channel Law Group alleging that the City Council improperly relied upon the subsequent need exception based on their claim that: “The claim need for the action did not come to the attention of the City subsequent to the posting of the agenda for the meeting nor was there a need to take immediate action.”
DISCUSSION:
The Cease and Desist Letter was issued under Government Code section 54960.2. This section, among other things, provides that any interested person alleging a violation of the Brown Act may commence an action against a local agency by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief to prevent violations or threatened violations, but only if certain conditions are meet. Those conditions include the timely submission of a cease and desist letter to the local agency identifying the alleged violation.
However, the legislative body of the local agency may respond to the cease and desist letter within 30 days of receiving the letter stating that it unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from and not report the challenged past action. If the local agency timely provides this unconditional commitment, it cannot then be sued for the violation unless it subsequently commits a new violation regarding the matter. Section 54960.2 expressly states that the local agency may make its unconditional commitment without admitting any violation of the Brown Act.
Attached for the City Council’s consideration, is a letter conforming to the prescribed text of an unconditional commitment under Section 54960.2. Approval, execution and mailing of this letter promptly after the Council meeting will bar potential litigation related to this matter, preserve the City from exposure to unnecessary defense costs, and does not require the City to admit any violation of the Brown Act.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has prepared this staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no anticipated fiscal impact on this item in the event that the City Council approves the letter. If the letter is not approved, the City may be subject to litigation, the costs of providing its defense, and for a potential adverse award of attorney’s fees if the litigation is successful.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Cease and Desist Letter received March 14, 2024
B. Proposed Response Letter