PD Editorial: A lesson in open meeting law for Sonoma County supervisors

The first paragraph of the Ralph M. Brown Act plainly states the purpose of California’s landmark open-meeting law:

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”

There are three exceptions: litigation, personnel matters and real estate negotiations can be discussed behind closed doors.

There isn’t an exception for politics.

Few things are as overtly political — or as intensely personal for politicians — as reapportionment, the decennial adjustment of district boundaries to reflect population and demographic changes. The outcome can make or break careers. Nonetheless, deliberations must, as the Brown Act says, “be conducted openly.”

Sonoma County supervisors violated the law at least twice last fall while debating their new districts.

District Attorney Jill Ravitch concluded that the supervisors didn’t properly disclose their reasons for convening a closed-door session on Nov. 19 and they improperly withheld a Nov. 29 staff memo that summarized board members’ comments on district boundaries.

Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, then the board chair, cited anticipated litigation as the rationale for the closed session, which Supervisor Chris Coursey later called “bogus.”

At the time, the board was divided over whether to adopt a redistricting plan submitted by an advisory committee, and Coursey says Hopkins used the private meeting to accuse him of trying to harm her politically. Hopkins denied making any accusations.

Ravitch didn’t rule on the supervisors’ justification for the meeting, which, it was later revealed, included social media posts alleging gerrymandering and suggestions about raising money for a lawsuit. However, the district attorney reprimanded the board for failing to provide a full accounting so the public could assess the actual risk of a lawsuit.

Our assessment: The county had practically no legal exposure, and any notes or minutes detailing what the supervisors said in private should be made public.

The Nov. 29 staff memo violated the “serial meeting” provision of the Brown Act, which bars officials from communicating with one through third parties on matters that by law are supposed to be discussed in public. The memo was labeled “attorney-client privileged communication,” but Ravitch found no evidence it was prepared by an attorney or contained legal advice.

Ravitch concluded that the Brown Act violations didn’t alter the outcome of the redistricting process. Her findings are important just the same, because open meeting laws are meaningless if elected and appointed officials aren’t held accountable.

The district attorney’s findings also are timely, coming as we in the media mark Sunshine Week, a national initiative of the News Leaders Association to spotlight the dangers of excessive and unnecessary government secrecy.

There are plenty of reasons here for county officials to be embarrassed, not least of which is Ravitch’s recommendation for additional Brown Act training for the supervisors, who include two former news reporters and a past president of the local League of Women Voters.

We started with some words from the Brown Act, and we’ll finish the same way: “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.