The City Council may have violated state open meetings law just before voting to purchase $3.1 million worth of future parkland.
The alleged transgression occurred during the Sept. 21 council meeting, when Mayor Mike Ferreira announced to the audience that the council needed a five-minute recess.
|
|
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, a set of provisions governing the way government meetings are conducted, council was required to explicitly notify the public that it intended to reconvene in closed session, said Jim Ewert, staff attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
No such notification was given.
Instead, shortly after ending the public comment period, the mayor requested a five-minute recess.
"I did have a request from a council member for a recess because there are some interesting questions that were asked and that we want to have a discussion with the attorney (about)," Ferreira said at the time.
Whenever a council goes into closed session, it is required to identify the grounds for that private meeting, also something that was not done.
Satisfying the requirement would have been simple, Ewert said. Ferriera needed only to reference one of the closed-session items printed on the agenda.
With regard to property negotiations - cited as the reason for the private gathering - the law only allows closed sessions to be held "to discuss price and terms of payment."
Upon return to open session, Ferreira said council had needed "clarification from the attorney regarding what we could respond to and what we couldn't regarding certain questions."
Ewert said that is insufficient grounds for a closed-door meeting.
"That kind of behavior is exactly what the Brown Act prohibits," Ewert said.
Violations of the Brown Act that occur prior to a vote do not automatically nullify the action, meaning the city's decision to purchase land is still valid. However, a problem remains - one that could return to trouble the deal.
If the city violated the law prior to the vote, that vote could be overturned in court, Ewert said.
Before going to court, the law states that the city must be given a chance to "cure and correct" the violation within 30 days of a request to do so. That correction would likely entail a new vote.
The other option is if "a court comes in and says you guys messed up - void the action. Go back and do it all over again," Ewert said.
Ferreira later said he did not realize he was treading on thin ice.
"If there's a technical thing we didn't do then there's a technical thing we didn't do but I differ to the city attorney on these matters," he said.
City Attorney Adam Lindgren did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.
w