*Editor’s note: On July 26, 2018, the City Council voted 3-1 in favor of a resolution giving the City Manager authority to submit letters in support or opposition to “high priority” state legislation where the League of California Cities has requested such action, but where it is determined there is not sufficient time to have the City Council vote on the matter. Mayor Steve Miller, as well as Councilmen Jeff Slowey and Al Fox voted in favor of the resolution. Councilman Bret Daniels voted against the resolution, and Vice Mayor Jeannie Bruins was not present for the vote. The resolution will sunset on Dec. 31, 2019, unless extended by the council. (See full document)
Guest opinion submitted by David Warren–
The primary safeguard of a democracy is the requirement that officials act only under the light of public scrutiny, and the Brown Act requires placing all matters for which action is taken by the City Council on a meeting agenda with adequate notice to the public to allow community members to attend and voice their support or opposition to any action under consideration.
Notwithstanding the importance of public debate and comment, councilmembers approved a resolution last month that allows them to avoid public scrutiny of their actions and simultaneously prevents public comment upon issues of significant importance, apparently believing that Edmond Burke is correct that the electorate lacks the ability to fully comprehend issues of public importance and must be treated as children to be lead to the “proper conclusion.”
Citrus Heights is a member of the League of California Cities. The League appears before the California legislature to lobby in support and opposition to various items of legislation. The League does not answer to Citrus Heights residents.
On numerous occasions, the League requests a letter from the City to support or oppose pending legislation, sometimes requesting an immediate response. Because the Brown Act requires minimum notice periods, councilmembers often cannot provide an immediate response to a League request.
Three councilmembers, deeming a response to the League more important than open discourse upon all issues of public importance, delegated authority to the City Manager to write letters in support and opposition to legislation on behalf of the City in response to requests from the League.
The three councilmembers’ justification for adopting the resolution is that placing items on the council agenda prevents rapid responses to a League request. To appease the League, and to the detriment of the city residents, three councilmembers chose to ignore their duty to the electorate by approving an end run around the Brown Act meeting notice requirements via a resolution authorizing the City Manager to issue letters of support or opposition to legislation based solely upon the League’s recommendation, without placing the League request on the council agenda for discussion and debate by both members of the council and the public.
The resolution does purport to limit the City Manager’s power by (1) limiting the authority to matters for which there is insufficient time to obtain council direction; (2) is consistent with previously adopted policies of the City and City Council; and (3) a requirement that the League deems the legislation of “high priority,” a very subjective definition.
In adopting this resolution, the three councilmembers abandoned their responsibility to determine whether or not the requested letter supporting or opposing legislation is consistent with City policies and in the best interests of the City, relying solely upon an unknown person at the League of Cities to make that decision, at the same time denying residents the opportunity for public comment.
In response to objections to the motion to adopt the resolution, the City Attorney was asked by Mayor Steve Miller whether or not the City Manager could poll the councilmembers to obtain their decision to issue the letter requested by the League. The City Attorney responded that the City Manager could call each councilmember and request their position, so long as the City Manager did not disclose the decision by any other councilmember, thus sidestepping the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act which ensures councilmembers must publicly explain the reasons for their vote and guaranteeing public comment upon the matter for which there should be approving or rejecting vote.
The councilmembers are thumbing their noses at the Government Code open meeting requirements for which reason there are three very important issues of concern to every resident.
First, who should be making community policy decisions, the councilmembers or the city manager? The answer is absolutely clear, the councilmembers.
Second, should the councilmembers seek to avoid the Brown Act open meeting requirements in the name of expediency? Clearly not.
Finally, shouldn’t the councilmembers be more concerned with guaranteeing an opportunity for a public hearing than the needs of the League? Absolutely.
The truth remains, that which is to be most feared is government acting without public scrutiny, and it is the duty of the brave to do everything possible to assure public discourse on all public issues.
Stand up for your democratic right to assure that all matters before the City Council are decided in a meeting open to the public, not by secret telephone calls. Call your councilmember and ask that the resolution be withdrawn.
David Warren is a Citrus Heights resident and legislative advocate at the State Capitol with Taxpayers for Public Safety. He can be reached at David@forpublicsafety.com.
Want to share your own thoughts on this topic or another local issue? Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here
