Note: Jon Nahhas of Boating Coalition wrote this letter to the Supervisors. Many have accused the Marina Vision Statement and the Supervisors of forgetting that the Marina was created as a small craft harbor and not a commercial, money-making endeavor for the County.
Dear Chair Knabe and Supervisors,
This letter is to call your attention to violations of central provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq.) and the California Public Records Act (GC 6250, et. seq.), both which may jeopardize the finality of the action taken by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. The nature of the violation is as follows: In its meeting of December 17, 2013, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took action and approved a transfer of a lease on Parcel 15U in the unincorporated area of Marina del Rey.
The action taken was not in compliance with the Brown Act and violated the provisions of Section 54953 of the Act, among other sections, in that the public was denied the right to meaningful participation in the deliberations, information gathering and action taken concerning the transfer because the fully negotiated lease agreement was presented for merely a “ceremonial” approval, only after a secret negotiation had been completed. The transfer of a public lease is an important item of public business and the public was denied “meaningful” participation in the deliberations and actions that were taken, as guaranteed under the Brown Act (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 41. & Stockton Newspapers, Inc. V. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 95, & Roberts V. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 363).
The California Attorney General’s Opinion quotes the Sacramento case as follows:
“To deliberate is to examine, weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against the choice. [Citation omitted.] Public choices are shaped by reasons of fact, reasons of policy, or both. Any of these agency’s functions may include or depend upon the ascertainment of facts. [Citations omitted.] Deliberation thus connotes not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.” [Emp. in original.]
And, as further reasoned by the court with respect to the Ralph M. Brown Act:
“In this area of regulation as well as others, a statute may push beyond debatable limits in order to block evasive techniques. An informal conference or caucus permits crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance. There is rarely any purpose to a nonpublic pre-meeting conference except to conduct some part of the decisional process behind closed doors. Only be embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices. As operative criteria, formality and informality are alien to the law’s design, exposing it to the very evasions it was designed to prevent. Construed in the light of the Brown Act’s objectives, the term ‘meeting’ extends to informal sessions or conferences of the Board members designed for the discussion of public business.” [Emp. in original.] (63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 820, 827 (1980).)
The above opinion is applicable to the secret decisions of the lease transfer on public property and (for item number 32) and clearly identifies a violation of our open meeting laws because there was not adequate information provided to the Board or the public regarding the transfer. The transfer of the lease constituted a series of non-public meetings, not authorized under the Brown Act, and led to a collective concurrence by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to approve the transfer.
On December 12, 2013 (5 days before the Board’s approval of the transfer), I initiated a request for public records involving the transfer of the lease on Parcel 15U from the Acting Director of the Department of Beaches & Harbors, Gary Jones. I specifically requested documents indicating money spent by the developer on parcel 15U (what are commonly called “improvements” on public property) and site plans for the parcel. As of the date of this letter, my request for these records has not been administered to completion. This is a clear violation of the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250-6276).
As provided by Section 54960.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. The County should set aside the approval and give the public an adequate opportunity to receive information on this transfer and to participate in the deliberations. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case I would also ask the court to order you to pay my court costs and reasonable attorney fees in this matter, pursuant to Section 54960.5.
