BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1003| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1003 Author: Yee (D) Amended: 5/3/12 Vote: 21 SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/9/12 AYES: Wolk, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Liu NOES: Dutton, Fuller, La Malfa SUBJECT : Local government: open meetings SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill amends the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) to specify that a district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief to determine whether the Brown Act applies to a local legislative body's past actions, as well as threatened future actions. This bill establishes a procedure for filing an action, limiting filings for past actions to one year, requiring a letter be submitted to the local agency setting forth the alleged violation, allowing the local agency 30 days to respond prior to proceeding with a legal action, and requires that a legal filing commence within 30 days after the response from the local agency. ANALYSIS : The Brown Act requires the meetings of local governments' legislative bodies to be "open and public," thereby ensuring people's access to information so that CONTINUED SB 1003 Page 2 they may retain control over the public agencies that serve them. Private discussions among a majority of a legislative body are prohibited, unless expressly authorized under the Brown Act. Legislative bodies can meet in closed sessions only for the specified reasons. Local officials must place a closed meeting item on an agenda and cite their statutory authority to meet behind closed doors. They must report on any action taken in closed session and provide the vote of every elected member present. The Brown Act authorizes any person to seek court action to stop or prevent violations of the Act. This bill amends the Brown Act to specify that a district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief to determine whether the Brown Act applies to a local legislative body's past actions, as well as threatened future actions. This bill establishes a procedure for filing an action, limiting filings for past actions to one year, requiring a letter be submitted to the local agency setting forth the alleged violation, allowing the local agency 30 days to respond prior to proceeding with a legal action, and require that a legal filing commence within 30 days after the response from the local agency. No more than 14 months may elapse after the alleged violation before the legal proceeding commences. This provision may only apply to alleged violations after January 1, 2013. Comments This bill clarifies that remedies available under the Brown Act extend to past actions, reaching back just one year, as well as future actions of legislative bodies of local agencies. This bill provides a procedure for an interested person to challenge the actions of a local agency and to seek relief before pursuing legal action. This bill clarifies the meaning of existing law, fortifying public accountability for local agencies. Related Legislation CONTINUED SB 1003 Page 3 This bill is similar to AB 1234 (Shelley), Chapter 393, Session of 1999, which clarified that the relief provisions of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act apply to past actions. Similar to the Brown Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act applies to the meetings of state entities. The bill was introduced in response to a legal case similar to McKee v. Tulare County Board of Supervisors in which the Court ruled the Legislature did not intend the relief available under Bagley-Keene to apply to past actions. The bill clarified that Bagley-Keene applies to past actions. It is unclear, since the passage of the bill, if state agencies have faced additional legal challenges under Bagley-Keene or if that history is a sufficient guide on whether local agencies will face additional, unwarranted scrutiny under this bill. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/9/12) AFSCME, AFL-CIO Californians Aware California Newspaper Publishers Association California Teachers Association First Amendment Coalition OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/9/12) Association of California School Administrators California Special Districts Association California State Association of Counties Cathedral City City of Ventura Community College League of California League of California Cities Regional Council of Rural Counties Urban Counties Caucus AGB:kc:d 5/10/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE CONTINUED SB 1003 Page 4 **** END **** CONTINUED