This Tuesday the 29 Palms city council has some interesting items on their agenda.
The first item that is a start in the right direction is the authority of the council to construct flashing lights and traffic calming dots on the roadway at Utah Trail and Highway 62. The staff report is well written. This expenditure of tax dollars is a wise choice and exemplifies why we are a city.
There is also a “crystal ball” moment on the agenda that many saw coming back in 2010. In 2010 Action Council 29 tried to obtain tax dollar funding in order to hold its first “Chalk Fest”. They were not successful. However in 2011 they were back and the council started a precedence by funding the chalk fest of 2011.
Well here is where the “crystal ball” comes into play. In 2010 when Action Council 29 was left to their own devices it was said that once the city starts to provide funding for Action Council 29 then they will be back for more. Sure enough there is an agenda item that is seeking $10,000 to paint a mural. The mural program in 29 Palms has never been funded by tax dollars. The loss of a mural because Walgreens did not build its store is not a problem of the city and tax dollars should not be used to replace it.
Given that little over a month ago our city said it could not afford to even partially fund the Fire Department in any manner at all the expenditure of $10,000 for a mural seems highly questionable.
Finally there is a resolution to be sent to Sacramento supporting an Assembly Bill that if passed will allow all the cities in California that sold bonds at the last minute to be able to use the proceeds of those bonds to build stuff. Never mind that the combined cost of all those bonds is over 1.4 Trillion – that’s right TRILLION!
For 29 Palms it is 31 million. We have been all over this Project Phoenix story for two years now and positions are pretty well established.
Some of us would like to see a council member or two say “No” to this continued pursuit of a dead project. Just because someone was once against this bad idea of selling bonds does not mean that they should now support every attempt to breath life into the bonds. If it was a bad idea in 2011 and you voted “No” then it does not become a good idea two years latter when we all know that the pursuit of Project Phoenix has cost the tax payers $577,000.00 and nothing has been built or bought.
There is also a closed session to evaluate the performance of the city manager. I hope our council does not do what Yucca Valley did and provide a raise to Mr. Warne. With the projected furlough of civilian workers on the Marine Base anyone getting a raise in this current economy will be frowned upon at best.
Nice recap Steve, sure highlighted many reasons the citizens needs to fire our greedy bastard infested city.
The council is so disconnected from the populace I would wager they will give that out of town blankety blank manager a raise.
I’m taking bets the city manager will have three votes and be awarded an increase in his benefit package.
What Steve is referring to in his next to last paragraph is that early on two existing city council members voted against taking out said debt bond, but since then the two have remained firmly behind supporting “every attempt to breath life into the bonds” at huge costs to taxpayers, local schools and college — where the money belongs.
I hope councilmen Jim Harris and Joel Klink end this money drain once and for all on Tuesday night.
3rd largest U.S. Retailer
9th largest Retailer Worldwide
Ranked 24th among Fortune 500 companies
Over 560 warehouses worldwide
55 million members
87% membership renewal rate
Serves over 8.5 million members annually
Hosts 58 million visitors annually on the Costco.com website
Provides countless opportunities for product exposure
Offers members great quality products at the best possible prices
Offers vendors the opportunity to sell their products by the truck load.
AND THE COSTCO CEO MAKES $500,000, over twice as much as most state governors, now tell me once again why in the hell the city manager of 29 would make anything above $80,000
If I understand the Brown Act, compensation can not be discussed during a closed session unless it is to take away compensation for disciplinary reasons. Even under the Labor Negotiations, the sessions can not include final compensation.
Personnel 54957.(b) (1)Brown Act(5) to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, as I am often reminded!
Cora is right. Here is what I found on the internet about “closed sessions” to discuss compensation:
“Personnel Matters The Board may hold closed sessions to consider the appointment, employment,evaluation of performance, discipline or dismissal of an employee, or to hear complaints or charges against an employee, unless the employee requests an open session. These sessions shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline. (Government Code 54957)”
There is no “expressed exemption” authorizing closed sessions in the government code.
Namely section 54957 deals with PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
“Closed sessions cannot be conducted unless expressly authorized by specific statutory provisions of the Brown Act. Since closed sessions are the exception to the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act, the provisions allowing closed sessions have been narrowly construed. Even if a matter is sensitive, controversial, cumbersome, embarrassing or could be handled in a much more expeditious manner in closed session, a closed session is not allowed unless expressly authorized by the Brown Act.”
V. PERMISSIBLE CLOSED SESSIONS
A. PURPOSE
http://www.bayareauasi.org/sites/default/files/resources/BAUASI%20-%20Brown%20Act%20Handout_0.pdf
NO WHERE IS IT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN THE BROWN ACT. Walking out of the meeting if the CC goes into closed session is a viable option. It’s been done before at 29 CC meetings.
Personnel Exception (Gov. Code § 54957(b)). The so-called “personnel”
exception allows a legislative body to meet in closed session to consider the “appointment, employment,evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public
session.”
http://www.bayareauasi.org/sites/default/files/resources/BAUASI%20-%20Brown%20Act%20Handout_0.pdf
B. AUTHORIZED EXCEPTIONS 1.
I would ask Rutan & Tucker’s A. Partick Munoz to show Cira where there is an exemption. Prove it.
According to Puclic Records Act expert Terry Franke — “A big difference made by Proposition 59 is that now if you have a rule of law that provides for public access to government meetings or government records, that law is to be interpreted broadly, generously. And that if you have a rule that limits access, that rule is to be interpreted strictly or narrowly. It prevents agencies from stretching secrecy farther than where it belongs.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/11/5251853/qa-open-government-advocate-terry.html#storylink=cpy
If the issue has been litigated in the appellate court, the quickest way to research would be to check the annotated cases in the Volume of the California Government Code. You need a law library for that and many attorneys have West’s Annotated California Codes or Deering’s California Codes Annotated (published by LexisNexis) — or with a online LexisNexis account (very expensive).
No argument from me on your research.
I was just saying what does go on and will continue to go on until council members start “walking out” like you said has been done before in 29 Palms and I was the one who did it.
Once I walked out that specific item never, ever, appeared in closed session or public session again, it was dead.
Anyways I wish the council good luck tonight.
Cora, remember that our cities pay a lot of money to law firms (Rutan and Tucker) and their job is to advise Councilmembers when they have questions of the legality of an action. Make use of this resource and document your discussions with the city attorney. At the council meeting, I would always make mention of the fact that I had discussed an item of concern with the city attorney so that it is on record that your position comes with the advice of counsel. Remember “always ask stupid questions”…any councilmember who thinks they know everything is probably not doing their job well. Gov laws and regs can be very confusing and subject to change all the time… I am a hopeful supporter of you as a member of the new regime and want you to set an example and give hope to others who want to break the oligarchy in their towns/cities…Linda
What is the remedy for a violation of the Brown Act? It is mere disclosure there is no criminal recourse. I can not find one case where anyone was prosecuted under the provisions of the Brown Act.
City Manager compensation is routinely discussed in closed session then brought out into the light of the public after a vote was had in closed session. Very similar to the $200,000.00 for bringing forth a lawsuit against the state. Been there done that. Unless you can convince your peers that it is improper.
I wish you luck tomorrow night.
There is always the option city manager could choose to skip any possible increase in his benefit package.
With all due respect…don’t just wish her luck, get over there to the council meeting and support her in person. It helps to look out into an audience of supporters when you are trying to stand your ground.
I spent my 8 years on the city council for 29 Palms and know how that all works already. Again Cora good luck tonight.
GC 54960 Individuals or District Attorney can file civil lawsuits and make the action null and void and the offending agency may be demanded to record all future closed sessions. DA Attorney fees are awarded to prevailing plantiffs. In addition Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 32, Sec. 18.)
But you are right, I can’t find anyone prosecuted for violating the Brown Act.
Former S.B. County Supervisor, Neil Derry, was the subject of a political grudge prosecution by the D.A., and as I recall was convicted of a 5K donation was not declared, and deposited it into a PAC fund . Ironically, the same DA’s wife donated money to the D.A. was deposited into his PAC fund and went undeclared.
If you are DA you can pick and choose whom you prosecute. I never heard of a DA prosecuting himself.
Hi Branson,
That prosecution was under other provisions of the law and was not pursued under the Brown Act.
Here is a web site regarding the brown act and steps that various prosecutors have taken.
http://www.brownact.4t.com/
Looking at the City of 29, it seems like some people feel that they are far enough out of the circle of influence that no one is going to bother them. While a resident, there were some things that were done that I know if it were in another location with a different population would have had different results. I applaud those of you who continue to fight for the citizens, because from what I see there may be only one council person who is doing just that.