.
Feedback

San Carlos To Remain a Transparent Governing Body

Updated: In an effort to save money, the state decided to suspend mandates that require local jurisdictions to keep the public informed. San Carlos will continue with its tradition of offering notices and reports in multiple platforms.

 

The state of California has decided to save money by passing the buck (literally) associated with the Brown Act along to the cities.

The state legislature suspended the Brown Act mandate that local jurisdictions — cities, counties, school districts, water districts and special districts — post meeting agendas for the public. The suspension also allows local jurisdictions to forgo reporting to the public about actions taken during closed-session meetings.

The State Legislature took the action as part of one of their Budget Bills signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

They say it will save the State $96 Million per year by refusing to abide by the requirements of SB 90 – earlier legislation that required the State to reimburse Cities, Counties and Special Districts for their costs when new State-required programs are added. 

San Carlos has had no discussions among its City Staff or the City Council to change any of that.

"When I first got into politics, in 1999, the city would post the agenda on the window," San Carlos Mayor Matt Grocutt said. "I wrote it all down and and e-mailed it to everybody. I would think we are still going to do that."

In fact, at the last planning commission meeting, city attorney Greg Rubens presented a refresher course on it, as he normally does every year with city council.

The Governor and Legislature are not subject to the Brown Act, which makes some of their comments about the importance of this law ring hollow.

San Carlos follows the Brown Act, even as some of the those who discuss it do not.

"Generally people want to know what government is doing," San Carlos Director of Community Development Al Savay said. "It's a kind of service to deliver to the the people. It makes good sense to continue that for both politicans and the community."

How many California municipalities will choose to abandon the transparency mandates is unknown, although the state is betting not many will.

The League of California Cities is expected to release an official statement on the issue next week, but the organization’s Communications Director Eva Spiegel said for now the suggestion to cities is to stick with the status quo.

"The League has been very involved with the Brown Act," she said. "We have always encouraged transparency."

But according to watchdog Californians Aware—a group that tries to foster improvement of, compliance with and public understanding and use of, public forum law, which deals with what rights citizens have to know what is going in in government—local jurisdictions learned how to milk the system.

They "could get a windfall of cash for doing something they had always done: preparing and posting meeting agendas for their governing and other bodies as mandated by Brown Act amendments passed in 1986—but as, in fact, routinely done anyway since time immemorial to satisfy practical and political expectations," the nonprofit reported Friday.

The state reportedly owes hundreds of cities reimbursements for previous years.

The Riverside Press-Enterprise reported that the state owes Riverside County some $2.6 million for expenses incurred in the past decade, according to the county auditor’s office.

State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has introduced a Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 7) that would ask California voters if they want the transparency. The amendment is stalled in committee.

"To anyone who's been watching this issue for a while, the real news is not that the Brown Act can be so dependent on the state budget," said Terry Franke, a California media law expert who is General Counsel, Californians Aware. "The real news is that 17 people in Sacramento are denying the public the chance to say 'Enough'."

In the meantime, the suspension could last through 2015, so it appears the public will need to demand transparency from its representatives if it wants to stay informed.

-- Los Altos Patch Editor L.A. Chung contributed to this report.

 

For news about San Carlos and surrounding areas, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook. Get Patched in daily - for free - by signing up for our newsletter. 

Want to blog for us? Simply click here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Holly Bell May 12, 2013 at 02:59 pm
If the city council likes fake plastic nature, then let them saran-wrap their own yards! LEAVE OURRead More PARKS ALONE!! This is soccer special interest pressure on city government at its worst, and the city council appears unwilling or unable to withstand it. Crestview Park is a particularly quiet, serene, simple park with lovely views which the council now wants to turn into a sports arena. Any day you can go there and see families playing on the grass, toddlers and moms enjoying picnics and play time, kids learning to ride their bikes on the nice flat paved area, athletes and older folks enjoying the flat natural track (the only one in San Carlos) to get in shape, teens throwing frisbees on the lawn. It is a perfect place for ALL residents to enjoy according to their needs, not a sports arena dedicated to one activity at the expense of all. Belmont faced a similar lack of sports venues, but they did not choose to pave paradise. They wisely raised money and built a sports complex and spared their beautiful parks for use by ALL residents. I would like to see our city council do the right thing also. And by the way, the opposition to this short-sighted plan is far more than "some residents"! Please visit our booth at Hometown Days.
Brenda May 9, 2013 at 04:10 am
One summer my kid had soccer camp on at an artificial turf field. It was terrible. It madeRead More everything hotter and very uncomfortable. I had to pull my kid out of camp early because of it. I do not think it is better for the environment OR for kids. Just go to any turf field and try to walk across it on a hot day. Try to go barefoot on it (good luck!) We have been told not to microwave plastic containers because of BPA and bad chemicals that can cause cancer. What about heating up plastic grass and running around on it, breathing the fumes that come off it?? How is that any different?
R. W. Dehner May 9, 2013 at 02:20 am
Artificial turf is appropriate for dedicated use sports venues, not for multi-use city parks.
Gordon cook April 15, 2013 at 11:30 am
Thanks for doing this. The one blatant thing I observe on a daily basis is the number and frequencyRead More of deputy's at Starbucks on 800 laurel street and the sky kitchen. I never see them in the neighborhoods. The police department was much better