BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|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,
Statutes 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 5/14/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
SB 1003
Page
4
**** END ****
CONTINUED