The Brown Act and State Funding: “To Post, or Not to Post? That is the Question…”

By Marisa Lincoln, Senior Associate
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office

On June 27, 2012, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 1464, the Budget Act of 2012 (“Budget Act”), and the Education Finance Budget Trailer Bill, Senate Bill 1016 (“Trailer Bill”). The Budget Act included a suspension of mandates concerning a body of law that is near and dear to the heart of public agencies, the Brown Act.

The Brown Act requires legislative bodies to prepare and post an agenda containing brief general descriptions of each item of business to be transacted or discussed in a place “freely accessible to the public” and on the agency’s website at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. (Government Code section 54954.2(a).) Agendas must also provide for an opportunity for the public to comment on matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, with certain exceptions. (Government Code section 54954.3(a).) The Brown Act also requires, prior to holding a closed session, that each item to be discussed in closed session be announced in open session. (Government Code section 54957.7(a).) In addition, formal action taken in closed session must be reported out in open session, and copies of final documents that were approved in closed session must be given to any person who submits a written request within specified timelines or to a person who has made a standing request for such documents. (Government Code section 54957.7(b).)

The Budget Act, as a cost savings measure, has suspended certain Brown Act mandates with regard to agenda preparation and posting and closed session activities requirements. Proposition 1A, a ballot initiative approved by voters in 2004, requires the “State to fund legislative mandates on local governments or suspend their operation.” In other words, if the State does not reimburse public agencies for compliance with legislative mandates, then there is no requirement for those public entities not receiving such reimbursement to follow those mandates. SF Gate has reported that the suspension of these mandates will result in a $96 million savings for the State.

The Brown Act Does Not Prohibit Written Communications to School Board Members, But Conveying Certain Information Can be a Violation

By James Scot Yarnell, Partner
Sacramento Office

We are periodically asked whether a "weekly update" memorandum which many superintendents distribute to school district governing board members violates the Brown Act. As a general rule, a weekly update distributed to Board members will not violate the Brown Act unless the memo communicates the "comments or position" of a Board member to other members.

Consider the following scenario: In response to a Board member request for information regarding the possible use of District fields by local athletic clubs, a superintendent issued a weekly update to the Board containing historical background information regarding the former use of District fields for athletic competitions by adult league athletic clubs. A long-time current Board member was the source of this information. Thus, the text of the weekly update stated, "Trustee ____________ shared the following information . . ." and proceeded to report a sequence of largely negative activities, observations and recollections by the trustee. In this scenario, a potential violation has occurred.

The "Secret" Exemption to the Brown Act Enjoyed by California K-12 School and Community College Districts

By Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office

School district administrators aren’t used to “thanking” Sacramento too often, given the annual slew of additional mandates and reduced funding from the Legislature. When the “Rodda Act,” the set of laws that provides for collective bargaining by school district employees in California, was enacted in 1975, however, the Legislature provided a little known exemption from the normal requirements of the Brown Act relating expressly to negotiations.

Specifically, Government Code section 3549.1 provides that the following activities are completely exempt from the Brown Act:

1. Any meeting and negotiating discussion between a public school employer and a recognized employee organization.
2. Any meeting of a mediator with either party or both parties to the meeting and negotiating process.
3. Any hearing, meeting, or investigation conducted by a fact-finder or arbitrator.
4. Any executive session of the public school employer or between the public school employer and its designated representative for the purpose of discussing its position regarding any matter within the scope of representation and instructing its designated representatives.

Consider the following two scenarios:

Court Finds County Committee On School District Organization Did Not Violate The California Voting Rights Act And Confirms Trial Court’s 90% Reduction In Award Of Attorneys’ Fees

By David Soldani, Senior Associate
Fresno Office
Todd Goluba, Partner
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office

On February 28, 2012, the court in Maria Esther Rey v. Madera Unified School District (February 28, 2012) held that a county committee on school district organization may not be held liable under the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA," Elections Code § 14025 et seq.) when the county committee has taken no action to impose or apply an election method on behalf of one of its school districts. The court also upheld the trial court’s decision to reduce by over 90%, the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to plaintiffs in the case.

The district was represented by Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo attorneys David Soldani, William Woolman and Jennifer Cantrell.