Five takeaways from District Attorney investigation into Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ redistricting process

An investigation by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office found the Board of Supervisors and county staff violated California’s open meetings law twice last year during the county’s monthslong, contentious redistricting process.

District Attorney Jill Ravitch shared the findings in two letters, which were made public Thursday.

Here are five takeaways from the investigation’s findings:

1. The Board of Supervisors and county staff violated the Brown Act twice during their redistricting process. In her findings, Ravitch wrote that her office found two instances where the board violated the state law that assures the public’s business — elected local government — gets done in public.

In the first violation, according to the District Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors did not properly notify the public about its reasons for entering a closed-door meeting on Nov. 19, where the discussion centered on potential legal threats over the county’s redistricting.

That confidential meeting factored in a sharp rift between supervisors Lynda Hopkins and Chris Coursey over redistricting. Their dispute colored subsequent weeks of public debate late last year over the new map redrawing boundaries for the five supervisorial districts.

The second violation occurred when staff compiled a memo summarizing supervisors’ comments on redistricting and shared it with all five board members outside of a public meeting. The district attorney’s investigation concluded that the sharing of that memo was “inappropriate,” a type of serial communication involving the board outside of public noticing that is forbidden by the Brown Act.

2. The investigation found the violations did not influence the final outcome of redistricting. The county’s top attorney, County Counsel Robert Pittman, said the findings do not jeopardize the new map the board approved 4-1 on Dec. 14. Coursey was the lone supervisor to vote against the final map. He favored the map created by the board’s 19-member Advisory Redistricting Commission.

3. Pittman requested the DA look into the closed session after Coursey publicly voiced his concerns, calling the pretense for the Nov. 19 closed-session meeting “bogus.” However, in addition to Pittman’s request, Sonia Taylor, a Santa Rosa political activist, also filed complaints accusing the board of Brown Act violations. Ravitch’s office carried out its review of Taylor’s complaints and the investigation requested by Pittman simultaneously. The District Attorney’s Office is investigating one final complaint from Taylor, which she filed with the office on Monday.

4. The DA’s Office has advised the county to publicly post the memo staff shared with board members before their Nov. 29 workshop, and documents outlining the potential legal threats that formed the basis for the Nov. 19 closed session. In a written statement, County Administrator Sheryl Bratton said the county is “working to post the documents.” They should be available on the county’s redistricting website.

5. The DA’s Office has also recommended additional training for the board and county on the Brown Act, established in 1953. According to Pittman, the county provides Brown Act training to all of its boards and committees once a year. It is also mandatory for elected officials, Pittman said. Bratton said the county is scheduling that training.

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.