The Brown Act, Proposition 59, and our City Attorney
On November 2, 2004, the voters of California passed Proposition 59. The vote was 83% YES and 16% NO. The intent of the legislation was to enhance the already existing Brown Act, also know as the Sunshine Law. In summary, Prop. 59 added to the Brown Act by further stating that the press and public must have access to the workings of state and local governments and ensure accountability. Prop. 59-made transparency a constitutional duty owed to the people, to whom officials are accountable.
At the December 5, 2007 Encinitas City Council meeting, Councilmember Jerome Stocks was allowed to “daylight” two opinions regarding the Brown Act. These opinions, deemed attorney/client privilege, were given to Mr. Stocks by our contracted City Attorney, Mr. Glenn Sabine. As I read these opinions, I was struck by several thoughts. Nowhere in Mr. Sabine’s response did he refer to Proposition 59, but instead referred to 1964 decisions made before Prop. 59 was even a law. Any citizen who had computer or a library card could have easily obtained the information Mr. Stocks was allowed to “daylight”. Therefore, Mr., Sabine spent our tax dollars giving an opinion that was outdated and certainly nothing only an attorney would know. In my opinion, Mr. Sabine did a disservice to Mr. Stocks and to the citizens of Encinitas, wasting both time and money. Perhaps it is time to review Mr. Sabine’s relationship with the City of Encinitas if this is the best information that he can provide our City.
The Brown Act.org
Smart Voter.org on Prop 59
Ralph M. Brown
Fantastic letter, Dr. Lorri. We are fortunate for your community involvement, for your continuing to ask the tough questions.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for posting her letter, JP. Right on; thanks for caring about open government and this City's over development practices, and over spending.
Here's Bill Arballo in the 12/28/07 issue, this past Friday's Coast News, Eye on the Coast:
"Just askin'
Folks are wondering how come Flower Capital city attny Glen Sabine didn't address Prop 59 (open government deliberations)approved by 83 percent of the voters in 2004, when he addressed the special meetings issue recently."
So, J.P. how does this relate to L101 that you said you would be focusing on? Yes, Sabine is a jackass, and so what if he costs us a fortune. You said you would stick to L101.
ReplyDeleteIt relates becuase he does cost a fortune and that money could be used for Leucadia. And don't blame it all on Lynn either. He costs us about $900,000 a year and Lynn's case is not in that league. If you don't believe me, go to the City and ask for the records yourself.
ReplyDeleteOf course Dr. Lorri as a Phd (but sadly not an M.D. or a Jd) must be aware that Prop59 had no legal impact on the Brown Act. It merely re-states that we should be an open government. Whoop De doo!!! The Brown Act and all its definitions were not modified by Prop59. The city of Encinitas strictly follows the tenets of the Brown act to limit the number of closed session meetings.
ReplyDeleteIf you want more than 24 hour notice of a meeting you cannot legally attend, then get the state law changed!!! Or perhaps you could find some issue actually worthy of your attention.
Let me get this straight... The Brown Act from 1953 is sacrosanct, but an opinion defining it from 1964 is out of date??? That's just funny!!!!
ReplyDeleteIf the City is violating the law then sue them. Otherwise shut the hell up you whiner.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:54 is right on the $$$, now it's time to put up or shut up!! Which of our major league city gadabouts will mortgage their homes to pay for the lawsuit?? Only time will tell, but in that it's not yet the 2nd day of 2008, they have plenty of time to refi!!!
ReplyDeleteShould be fun to watch this unfold!!
Maybe Russell Marr and Lynn Braun Marr will sue; if they're right the judgement could offset the judgement the city has against them for being wrong last-time!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, If they're so into "transparency" why don't they always make it clear they are married???
The city of Encinitas does NOT strictly follow the tenants of the Brown Act. That is according to Teresa Barth, Maggie Houlihan, NCT, the SD Union Tribune, Bill Arballo, General Counsel for Calaware, Terry Francke, Attorney Dennis Winston, and anyone who has actually read the exact wording of the law.
ReplyDeleteThe public has the right to attend both special meetings and regular council meetings. Both types of meeting open in public session, and REPORT OUT of any closed meeting, held “in chambers” if one is scheduled, INTO OPEN session. Closed sessions do NOT stand alone, as Glenn Sabine has wrongly advised, in his devious manner, to give inadequate, shortened notice, and before 2007, NO NOTICE that the public could speak. When notice was finally given, beginning in 2007, it was done on the REGULAR AGENDA. Closed sessions held before and reporting into regular council meetings require 72 hr. notice. Closed sessions are linked to the open Council Meeting that they precede. I repeat myself, Jerome, because you are changing the subject, not listening. And being rude to me and all of the citizens, all of YOUR CONSTITUENTS. This will come back to haunt you.
The law does not need to be changed. Both the City and you need to follow and properly interpret and apply the law.
Prop 59 REINFORCED that the public by an 83% majority, wants open, honest and accountable government, on all levels.
Come on, Jerome, we know you are posting anonymously, again. You are changing the subject, over and over. Statutory law and Constitutional Law very clearly override an irrelevant and inexact State Attorney General's opinion from over 40 years ago. Our City Attorney's opinion and archaic opinion from an unnamed former state attorney general, (which opinion actually VALIDATED the public's right to be given adequate notice for all "executive meetings," by the way) do NOT carry the same weight as law, including Case Law, which is legal precedent.
Encinitas government practices, our City's spending and open/closed session noticing policy, does relate to Leucadia. Most of us, if sober, can agree on this.
ReplyDeleteSeems like we all know who doesn't want us to address these issues, as they do affect our entire city and the public trust, in general.
It's easy for someone on Council (Jerome) to say, "sue the government" if you think we are wrong. They don't (Jerome doesn't)have to spend a dime out of their(his) own pocket(s), but keep(s) spending more and more taxpayer money, seemingly without a twinge of guilt, only too happy to go to court.
What's it to them (him)? They don't (he doesn't) have to worry about hiring an attorney. The majority on Council already has a crooked attorney and a toadying City Manager, right where they want them, in their back pocket.
Shhhhhh. It's attorney client privilege. We pay for it, they lord it over us and dare the people to sue, if any poor schmuck can afford to!
Times are changing. New Year, and elections are coming up sooner than we realize. . .
Never having been invited to any closed session meeting, I have a few questions about them.
ReplyDeleteAre minutes taken at these closed session City meetings?
Are closed session minutes ever viewable by the public?
Are closed session agenda items ever posted on the city's website 24-72 hours prior to the session?
If not, the so called "Sunshine Ordinance" appears to be lacking - or at best creating a very short window of opportunity in which the public can voice potential agenda concerns to council members.
Perhaps part of the city website could say "Click here to automatically recieve all council, special and closed meeting agendas via your email". Then before the ink is dry on the hardcopy posted outside city hall, voila. It's in your face.
If Lynn and Russell are so much into transparency, perhaps they will begin to post under one name only, and not the half-dozen or more names they regularly use. Although Lynn has used only her name as of late. We can only hope the begin to practice what they preach!!!
ReplyDeleteI am not anti Lynn nor anti Russell, I AM anti wasting taxpayer $$$ to fuel personal vendettas against city employees!!!
I wonder if repeat fire anon above is Jerome. He is rightly sensitive about this issue and he also was the one that said in the meeting that the public should sue the city if they don't like him violating the law. Nice attitude.
ReplyDeleteThe 1960's judgment is outdated because Prop 59 tells the people and judges that when interpreting loopholes in the brown act that city's must err on the side of more open government, not less.
Sabine should be fired for not including an analysis with Prop 59, unless that is what the council wanted.
Did Sabine get it write in La Mesa?
Weather.com is calling for 5-8 inches of rain for the SD mountains in the next 4 days.. How much rain will fall in Leucadia?? Will the city be prepared for all this rain?? What parts of 101 will be flooded?? If my trailer floods, I plan on suing someone. Where can I get sand bags??
ReplyDeletePerhaps Lynn and Russell can be elected to the council and then they along with Barth and Houlihan can hold their open council sessions anywhere, anytime. I say start in Moonlight beach parking lot. Or Perhaps the 50 yard line of the football stadium of SD Academy!! Both those places are "OPEN"!!! This way we'll be able to see thru the lies of the current council members!!
ReplyDeleteLynn I don't you but I like reading your opinions but you cross the line between concerned citizen to crazy paranoid person when you openly accuse Jerome Stocks of internet stalking you.
ReplyDeleteButthead- Hey Beavis, anon-7;58 said "See thru", heeehhh,heeehhhh cool!!
ReplyDeleteBeavis- yeah, yeah "see thru", yeah!!
To answer Fred's questions, which seem the most reasonable. No minutes are taken at a closed session and the public is not given an opportunity to look at them as there are none. The purpose of the Brown Act and Prop 59 was to give the public some idea of what the City is up to. Therefore, that is why posting having a closed or special session is so important. These sessions are supposed to deal with specific things, however, some have sugested our City violates this and talks about things that should be in open sessions. Then, the Council is supposed to break out into an open session. There was an alleged incident over the recent holidays where Jerome Stocks did call a closed or special meeting and did violate legal procedure by not gong into open session. The City is required to post what the meetings in general are about. They have been better at this since Teresa called them out on it.I hope that anwers some questions for all of you. This is important because any of you who have older homes, say with "granny flats" could be "out of code". The City theoreticlly could make you get these up to code. How much would that cost you? Depends I guess. Not all of Encinitas lives in new homes. The issues that concern me are the lack of interest the City Attorney seemingly took in this case, and the arrogance of both the attorney and Council when asked about it. However I don't know all of the facts, as I do not know Dr. Lorri. I am just a concerned citizen with the J.D. someone said she doesn't have.Hope that helps.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Sabine is NOT a CIty employee as someone suggested. He is a contracted City Attorney. However, the City does not seem to want to look at any other possible contracted city attorneys as they are happy with him. If you want to see what he is capable of, ask the citizen from La Mesa, who was openly threatened with a lawsuit if he did not apologize publically to the mayor. Mr. Sabine wrote it on his own personal stationary, not on the City of La Mesa's stationary.The mayor later apologized to the citizen.
ReplyDeleteInteresting on the "no minutes" for closed session. Kerry Miller may have instituted taping of the closed session meetings while he was city manager.
ReplyDeleteI did not accuse you, Jerome, of "stalking me," so that is more twisting of the facts. This is a page and ½ in a word doc. But if your attention span is lacking, please feel free to skip it. I'm bored with your whining about your being bored, frankly. People do care about open government, and you will find this out come election time, and that goes for Jim Bond, too, if he changes his mind, again, and decides to run for a fifth four year term. Please don't, Mr. Bond.
ReplyDeleteI do think Mr. Stocks is spewing out most if not all of the posts mentioning my name in a negative manner, here; He is obviously trying to shift the focus from the issue of open govt. to personal attacks and derision.
Jerome, you are a public figure, and your "anonymous posts," whether done by you or your dirty trickster buddies, are apparent to all of us.
City employees, or City contractors, are not immune from public complaints or criticism. If a Govt. employee, contractor or officer lies or misleads, is rude to the public, and doesn't return calls, or provide accurate information to Council, or any person, and a citizen complains to Council (and the City Manager, unless the manager is the one being complained about), then Council does need to consider the complaints and take some kind of action, have a hearing, even if the meeting is held privately. An employee does have the right to ask that a disciplinary hearing be held publicly or privately, I believe.
On the other hand, if a citizen, formally asks for a determination of compliance or allowable use, according to Encinitas Code, he or she is entitled to a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then before Council, if he or she wants to appeal the Planning Commission's determination. The Planning Director DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to refuse to grant the determination, and refuse to let the Planning Commission review the application for determination, refusing to accept or address the application for such determination, or an application for a permit, or a cashier's check, always returning the check without returning the completed permit application, rudely disregarding and not addressing the applicant’s legal rights, according the City’s own established municipal code! This is unethical, and the City should not routinely defer to staff recommendations, but should allow its various commissions to do their jobs.
Fred, to my knowledge, the City Clerk keeps only skeleton "minutes," for closed sessions. Normally these have consisted of the bare minimum: the numbered agenda items, and "no reportable action,” listed as being announced into open session, of REGULAR MEETINGS.
City Council has ALSO been violating the Brown Act regarding reporting any actions or decisions, and the vote, out of closed session, as well as NAMING claims against the City before the case has been initiated. Until now, the City has not put into its minutes, or its agenda notice, the nature of the lawsuit against the city, as is required when the City is Defendant.
Glenn Sabine should know all this. I spoke to the City Clerk of La Mesa, Mary Kennedy. She told me that La Mesa routinely gives 72 hour notice for closed session agenda items, INCLUDING the fact that the public can address the Council before it goes into closed chambers. She said La Mesa had had a problem in 2006, and wanted to make sure it now gives proper notice. Glenn Sabine is City Attorney for La Mesa, as well as Encinitas. He makes huge money through the City of Encinitas, we know, but still somehow had three tax liens filed against him by the County Recorder, which is public record. The record also shows he was able to pay these off, apparently, and get them released in 2006, I think because he profits so much from all of the unnecessary litigation he promotes through our City. It is almost always better for the City's general fund, and for the individual taxpayers, as well, for the City to handle matters administratively. Glenn Sabine has subverted this process by going to court before there was ever a public hearing in our case, and others.
Glenn Sabine still calls the closed sessions before regular council meetings in La Mesa "Special Meeting Closed Sessions," though. It is not important what he labels them, as long as closed sessions before REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS get 72 hour notice.
The shortened notice which designates a Council Meeting as a "special meeting" is to be the exception, not the rule, and was allowed by the State for the rare case where Council and the City Attorney have something important that comes up at the last minute. Calling a Council Meeting a "special meetings" is NOT to be a device to prevent the public from getting 72 hour notice, or to prevent the public from speaking in the public portion of the meeting.
The logic of saying, "we would have been sued if we were doing it wrong," which was stated by Jim Bond, is certainly flawed. The average citizen doesn't know the law and can't afford to sue.
Thank goodness the Jarvis Taxpayers Association went to bat for us citizens, thanks in large part to Donna Westbrook. We would not have been allowed to vote on the illegal fee placed on our trash bills, otherwise. Donna and the JTA saved us all millions of dollars, and we all got 72 dollar refunds!
This country was founded on the basic premise of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, among other things. The Brown Act and Prop 59 address these. If a City does not honor these freedoms, are we any better than a dictatorship? Certainly people can sue. However, is that really the point? Why should we have to? Is it unrealistic to expect our local City Council and it's City Attorney and Staff to abide by the basic tenents of the United States of America? Were our founding fathers wrong? If so, we should not be in Iraq, or any other undemocratic country, attempting to persuade them that an open democratic government is a good thing. And by that I am not talking political parties, but all parties within this country. I love this country and that is why this issue is so important to me. If anyone has traveled to places like Iran or Iraq, perhaps they might be more inclined to take this issue a bit more seriously.
ReplyDeleteYawwwwnnnnn.....
ReplyDeleteJP- How about finihsing the cruise down HW101 North of Leucadia Blvd.?
Or how are the cobbles?
Or how are the pimples on Britney's butt?
Anything but more of this.
Good night....after reading the last few posts, I am burnt.
who's the chick with the hot butt?
ReplyDeleteJerome:
ReplyDeleteEnough already with all the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!
Lynn: You are crazy. Okay, I don't know you but you seem crazy. I have only been to one City Council meeting and holy god damn, Lynn and her friend Russel are not right in the membrane. Lynn started out by wishing herself a happy birthday indirectly during open mike and Russel just spent his time pointing and screaming at the City Attorney and the City Manager like he was trying out for the WWE. I do believe he also saluted the City Manager. I don't think it was very sincere though.
ReplyDeleteAgain, holy good god, god damn! I now choose to stay away from Council meetings and watch from home if necessary unless there's law enforcement there to protect me.
Please refill your prescription, Lynn.
The Brown Act does NOT require Closed Sessions but does allow them to address a few limited and narrow issues...Litagation, Real Estate Negotiations, Public Employment, Labor Negotiations and Public Security. It is the legislative body (city council) who decides if an issue should be discussed in closed session.
ReplyDeleteI love that song. Insane in the membrane!Insane in the membrane!.....Insane in the membrane! Oyyye Oyyyye! Insane in the membrane!
ReplyDeleteJerome: Dr. Lorri does have a J.D. She just doesn't flaunt it and does not practice law in this state. She also has some powerful political friends and family, so you might want to watch it a bit. Just helpin you out ole buddy.
ReplyDeleteIf she has all of these fancy degrees she should let us know. It doens't seem right. I don't belive you.
ReplyDeleteI thought she was a dog psychologist.
ReplyDeleteWoof-Woof, aren't these humans funny? As if we need dog psychologists. People are the ones who need the shrinks.God, some people are just wacko.
ReplyDeleteYou ought to know, Jerome. Or is it you and your buddy Mike Andreen buzzing on booze?
ReplyDeleteThat puff piece in Encinitas First is wrong. Check out the last SD Reader to see how credit ratings have been skewed, by the biased raters, who are 90% financed by those they are rating. The skewed ratings are relevant to both private and public corporations. Enc. Inc. is going more and more into red ink, on the backs of future generations, while the bloated staff gets higher wages and benefits, and so does Council! Every city has to have reserves. If we are so secure, then why do we have to do flimflam lease revenue scams? Why doesn't Encinitas allow public votes on general obligation bonds? Or zoning change issues?
And the issue, here, isn't whether or not any city council can have closed session, or what can be discussed. It's whether the City of Encinitas is giving proper notice for closed sessions held directly before Regular Council Meetings, and the fact that the improperly noticed sessions have also not been correctly reported into open session. You can't duck your Brown Act violations, Jerome, by trying to bring down the blog with your prejudiced personality attacks. Dr. Lorri is bright, involved and compassionate. By trying to degrade folks posting here, you degrade yourself.
Of course, Jerome et al, you'd rather just keep putting down those people who want to address these issues, twisting the facts, stabbing people in the back with your crude, rude and lying slurs.
Thanks to everyone who takes the time to get involved. Jerome, you aren't fooling anyone here, and only make you and your dirty tricksters look and smell bad.
You don't post your name, and that's fine, but you could address the issues of the post, and not attack people who do give their names. Many, many voters are getting a glimpse of your true nature here, Jerome, and also by your actions in voting against open government and promoting fear tactics and an unnecessary police intimidation ordinance, designed to muffle or muzzle free speech. Thank God that ordinance failed, as you will in your upcoming re-election bid.
Dr. Lorri-
ReplyDeleteSomeone? needs some help this week.
Maybe you could give someone a call to see how you can help out.
Thanks,
Leucadia Blog.
Dr. Lorri helps JP's blog, plenty.
ReplyDeleteThe ones who "need help" are Jerome and his band of dirty tricksters. Help get them voted out of office.
I believe you should try some Valium; you could get some much needed sleep and quite worrying about the "dirty rotten tricksters".
ReplyDeleteGood night L!
Scene: Dark grimy cafe somewhere in Carlsbad:
ReplyDeleteStocked: Damn yokels tryin to git into my meetings -- Glennboy you need to write up sum of dat legal mumbo jumbo so's we can keep the great unwashed off the purty chairs in council chambers.
Sabined: Jerryboy, I got sumthin right here for you. I done opened up a lawbook and put my finger on da case that will surely confound and confuse the issue. Hell, only costs $500 per hour for my legal mumbo jumbo.
Stocked: Glennboy you sure one smart possum!!!! Now give me one of them thar tater tots -- you always piggin them tater tots!!!
Sabined: Jerryboy you one big whiner -- you can have all my tater tots. You happy now?
Stocked: Ummgud tthooutghbtggnen.
Fadeout.......