Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego council guilty of limiting access?
"The City is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s rights."
A government watchdog group that sued the city for denying citizens a chance to speak on non-agenda items during San Diego City Council hearings should have their day in court, ruled a panel of appellate judges on May 31.
The Center for Local Government Accountability filed its lawsuit in September 2014. The lawsuit centered on a 2001 council decision to consolidate Monday and Tuesday council hearings into one meeting. By doing so, the council was allowed to limit public comment to just one of the two council hearings. The purpose, according to former councilmember Ralph Inzunza, was to grant additional time for residents who wished to speak on docketed items more opportunity to speak.
The policy was in place until 2014, when the group's attorney, Craig Sherman, alleged that the practice violated California's Brown Act. City attorney Jan Goldsmith subsequently took a look at the issue in a October 2014 memo. The memo concluded that both sides had viable arguments.
"...[I]t can be argued that the council is charged...with ensuring 'the intent' of the Brown Act's provision for public comment 'is carried out,' read the memo. "This provision must be 'broadly construed' in favor of greater public access. Creating a two-day consolidated meeting in order to limit access, the argument would go, does not carry out a law that is intended to facilitate access. What's more, the argument would continue, if the council wants to protect other speakers, it could schedule public comments at the end of the agenda."
Despite Goldsmith's warning, the council opted to litigate the matter. Then, in January 2015, the council decided to change course and allow for public comment during both days; at the same time, the council refused to settle the lawsuit with a guarantee that the policy would not be reinstated.
In May 2015 a San Diego Superior Court judge dismissed the case due to a procedural error. The group appealed. On May 31 their ruling was officially published.
"...[T]he city's counsel acknowledged the change in the city's practice for handling non-agenda public comment periods did not equate to a change in the city's legal position. The city still consider its two-day regular weekly meetings to be one continuous meeting, rather than two separate meetings, for Brown Act purposes. The city also has not conceded its former practice of allowing only one non-agenda public comment period violated the Brown Act. Thus, the [Center for Local Government Accountability] may be able to at least plead a viable claim for declaratory relief."
The ruling sends the issue back to the trial court.
In a statement, attorney Sherman said, "The City is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s rights, not advocate and find ways to quash and limit them. Time and time again local agencies need to be reminded by the courts and groups like the [Center for Local Government Accountability] that they must diligently and proactively ensure compliance with all of the Brown Act. The public enforcement provisions of the Brown Act are meant to be a deterrent, not a safe harbor provision that reads: ‘catch me if you can; if you do, send me a letter and I will fix it.'”
Here's something you might be interested in.
San Diego council guilty of limiting access?
"The City is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s rights."
San Diego council guilty of limiting access?
"The City is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s rights."
A government watchdog group that sued the city for denying citizens a chance to speak on non-agenda items during San Diego City Council hearings should have their day in court, ruled a panel of appellate judges on May 31.
The Center for Local Government Accountability filed its lawsuit in September 2014. The lawsuit centered on a 2001 council decision to consolidate Monday and Tuesday council hearings into one meeting. By doing so, the council was allowed to limit public comment to just one of the two council hearings. The purpose, according to former councilmember Ralph Inzunza, was to grant additional time for residents who wished to speak on docketed items more opportunity to speak.
The policy was in place until 2014, when the group's attorney, Craig Sherman, alleged that the practice violated California's Brown Act. City attorney Jan Goldsmith subsequently took a look at the issue in a October 2014 memo. The memo concluded that both sides had viable arguments.
"...[I]t can be argued that the council is charged...with ensuring 'the intent' of the Brown Act's provision for public comment 'is carried out,' read the memo. "This provision must be 'broadly construed' in favor of greater public access. Creating a two-day consolidated meeting in order to limit access, the argument would go, does not carry out a law that is intended to facilitate access. What's more, the argument would continue, if the council wants to protect other speakers, it could schedule public comments at the end of the agenda."
Despite Goldsmith's warning, the council opted to litigate the matter. Then, in January 2015, the council decided to change course and allow for public comment during both days; at the same time, the council refused to settle the lawsuit with a guarantee that the policy would not be reinstated.
In May 2015 a San Diego Superior Court judge dismissed the case due to a procedural error. The group appealed. On May 31 their ruling was officially published.
"...[T]he city's counsel acknowledged the change in the city's practice for handling non-agenda public comment periods did not equate to a change in the city's legal position. The city still consider its two-day regular weekly meetings to be one continuous meeting, rather than two separate meetings, for Brown Act purposes. The city also has not conceded its former practice of allowing only one non-agenda public comment period violated the Brown Act. Thus, the [Center for Local Government Accountability] may be able to at least plead a viable claim for declaratory relief."
The ruling sends the issue back to the trial court.
In a statement, attorney Sherman said, "The City is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s rights, not advocate and find ways to quash and limit them. Time and time again local agencies need to be reminded by the courts and groups like the [Center for Local Government Accountability] that they must diligently and proactively ensure compliance with all of the Brown Act. The public enforcement provisions of the Brown Act are meant to be a deterrent, not a safe harbor provision that reads: ‘catch me if you can; if you do, send me a letter and I will fix it.'”
Comments