Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Response To Complainant P14-0317

    Uploaded by

    Max Schwartz
    18 views3 pages
    This was a letter sent to a member of the public who filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County District Attorney alleging that a Brown Act violation took place.

    Original Title

    Response to Complainant P14-0317

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This was a letter sent to a member of the public who filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County District Attorney alleging that a Brown Act violation took place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views3 pages

    Response To Complainant P14-0317

    Uploaded by

    Max Schwartz
    This was a letter sent to a member of the public who filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County District Attorney alleging that a Brown Act violation took place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3
    sgt, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE {4, BUREAU OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PROSECUTIONS. - 3 3 PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION SEMIS srceewacey ova omy ‘SCOTT K. GOODWIN o Brecor ‘SOSEDH B. ESPOSITO Austr Dist Atorney January 29, 2015 a Re: Alleged Brown Act Violation by Board of Supervisors Case No, P14-0317, Response #3 ‘This letter isin response to the complaint you submitted via email on November 22, 2014, alleging a violation of the Brown Act (Act) by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board). You alleged that the Board violated the Act in two separate ways, both relating to a “five-signature letter’ dated August 20, 2014, from the Board to the Califomia State Legislature expressing opposition to Assembly Bil 194 (AB 194). That bil, coincidentally ‘sought to amend the Brown Act. As explained below, we do not find any Violation by the Board, ‘You allege that the Board violated the Act by failing to give the public notice that it was ‘considering sending the letter to the Legislature. Goverment Code section 54954.2 requires that the Board identify all items of business on an agenda which is made available tothe public. On the agenda for the Board meeting on December 3, 2013, Item 14 related to the Board's 2013-2014 State Legislative Agenda. The agenda description for Item 14 read: Approve recommended additions, deletions, and changes to existing Board- atopted policies and positions for inclusion in the 2013-14 State Legislative ‘Agenda; and instruct the Chief Executive Officer and affected departments to work with the County delegation, other counties and local governments, and interest groups fo pursue these policies, positions, and priorities inthe ‘State Legislature, and with Administration and its agencies. (Emphasis added.) Copies of the Board's 2013-2014 State Legislative Agenda and a letter from the CEO itlining recammended changes were attached to the agenda for the meeting on December 3, 2013. In the Legislative Agenda, General Principle Number Seven read: “Oppose any abridgement or elimination ofthe Board of Supervisors’ powers and duties. 766 Hat ot Records 320 Wet Temple Steet tos Angles.cA: 90012 (21) 974-85 Fox: (212) 620-9648 unless the change promotes a higher priority ofthe Board." Section 3.14, Public Records, Number One stated, “Oppose legislation that imposes unreasonable burdens or creates Unfunded mandates to provide access to records, information managed and maintained by ‘County agencies.” (On December 3, 2013, pursuant to the meeting agenda, the Board adopted the recommended changes to the previously adopted Legislative Agenda. It further instructed the CEO to take actions to support the adopted Legislative Agenda. As instructed, the (CEO worked with the County delegation in Sacramento to support the policies stated in the Lesislative Agenda. Periodically, the CEO issued reports —which were avaiiabe to the public on the Chief Executive Office website—to update the Board regarding the County's ‘Sacramento advocates’ efforts on specific pending legislation. Erforts n opposition to AB 1194 were included in reports dated February 7, 2013, AprilS, 2013, January 14, 2014, June 27, 2014, July 22, 2014 and August 18, 2014, The reports stated that based on the principe in the Legislative Agenda, the Sacramento advocates would oppose AB 194 “unless otherwise directed by the Board.” Therefore, the Board did no: need to specifically ‘vote o take action at a public meeting, The letter at issue did not constitute an action as contemplated by the Brown Act, rather it was merely a reiteration of the Board's opposition 10 AB 194 as already established by its Sacramento advocates under the direction of the CEO. ‘You further contended that “in order for that five-signature letter to have been signed on cone piace of paper, by all five supervisors, there must have been prohtited action taken eitherin closed session, by serial meeting, or by ‘meeting through writing.” Our review of this matter established that the letter was written by the Chief Executive Office and submited to the Board members for signature. Given that the Board's position on the bill ‘was established long before the letter was writen, this procedure does not involve communications prohibited by the Act. In addition to the contentions pertaining to the letter above, in your email you take issue with the manner in which our office handled your previous complaint dated July 14, 2014, Basec on that complaint, we found that the Board violated the Act as stated in our letter to the Beard dated October 22, 2014. But no further action was taken because there was no pattem of conduct by the Board in violation ofthe Act. The Act only specifies limited ‘enforcement procedures. Violations of different provisions of the Act cannot simply be bundled for enforcement. We refer you to Government Code sections 54960, 54960.1 ‘and $8900.2 for an understanding ofthe enforcement parameters, ‘You also argued that a pattern has been established from your list of past findings by our office that the Board had violated the Act. You listed eight such findings from 2002 through 2014. However, when put in perspective by even the most ccnservative calculations, it is clear that there is no pattem, Based on the Board meeting regularly each Week, excluding holidays and any special meetings, a conservative estimate is that the Board has 50 meetings per year. Over the span of the thirteen years according to your lst, the Board would have had approximately 650 meetings. Eight examples out of 650 ‘does not approach any semblance of a pattern. Moreover, the eight vations involved eight specic items of business. Therefore, given that each meeting egenda regulary lists ‘over 50 individual items, a more accurate assessment would consider the eight examples in light ofthe approximately 32,000 individual items of business handled by the Board during that time period. We find no violation by the Board based on your complaint and no pattem of violations over the pest 13 years, Very truly yours, JACKIE LACEY District Attorney pe

    You might also like