Brown Act Petition: Californians Aware v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kelly A. Aviles (SBN 257168) LAW OFFICES OF KELLY AVILES 1502 Foothill Blvd., #103-140 La Verne, California 91750 Telephone: (909) 991-7560 Facsimile: (909) 991-7594 Email: [email protected] JOSEPH T. FRANCKE (SBN 88654) General Counsel Californians Aware 2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, California 95608 Telephone: (916) 487-7000 Facsimile: (916) 487-7999 Attorneys for Petitioner CALIFORNIANS AWARE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIANS AWARE, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Respondent/Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, INJUNCTIVE, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT; EXHIBITS A THROUGH F [Cal. Government Code Section 54950, et seq.]

This action seeks relief from the failure of Respondent/Defendant LOS

ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS to perform as required by the Ralph

M. Brown Act, Government Code, section 54950, et seq., (Brown Act), thereby

denying the publics right to the protections afforded by our States open government

laws and the Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution.

-1- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Petitioner/Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS AWARE seeks a writ of mandate,

injunctive, and declaratory relief under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085

and 1060 and Government Code sections 54960 and 54960.21. In this Verified Petition,

Petitioner alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner/Plaintiff Californians Aware (CalAware) is a 501(c)(3) non-

profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of California, governed by a

board comprised of public officials, publicly-minded citizens, and journalists, whose

mission includes the promotion and defense of the principles of open government.

2. Respondent/Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS (Board or Respondent) is the elected, five-member governing body

of Los Angeles County (County), California. The Boards executive offices are located

in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple Street,

Los Angeles, California 90012. The County is defined as a local agency by section

54951. The Board is a legislative body pursuant to section 54952.

MATERIAL FACTS

3. In 2013, Assemblywoman Nora Campos introduced Assembly Bill 194

(AB 194). The bill sought to amend the Brown Act by clarifying certain public rights

regarding public comment at the meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies. The

bill eventually passed both houses, but was later vetoed by the Governor.

4. The Board opposed AB 194. On August 20, 2014, the Board sent a letter

to the Legislature, signed by all five supervisors, opposing the bill. A true and correct

copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the

Board sent a second letter to the Governor, asking him to veto the bill after it had

passed both the Assembly and the Senate.

6. However, Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,

that nothing about either letter or about AB 194 ever appeared on any Board Agenda.

7. After learning that the entire Board had taken a specific position on a

particular bill, outside of a public meeting, Terry Francke, General Counsel for

Petitioner, sent correspondence to Sachi A. Hamai, Executive Officer and Clerk of the

Board. A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit

B. In that correspondence, Mr. Francke notified the Board that its collective action to

oppose AB 194 outside of a public meeting violated the Brown Act and asked it to cease

and desist from that practice in the future, in accordance with section 54960.2.

8. On March 13, 2015, Latayvius R. Alberty, Deputy County Counsel for the

County of Los Angeles, responded to the Demand (the Response.) A true and correct

copy of the Response is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Response claimed that the

practice was not a Brown Act violation because the Board annually adopts a State

Legislative Agenda during a public meeting, and the Boards approval of legislative

policies and procedures during its public meeting on December 3, 2013, was clearly

broad enough to authorize all actions takento oppose AB 194. Specifically, County

Counsel cited two policies that served as the platform for the Boards opposition of AB

194: General Policy No. 7, which allows the CEO and Sacramento advocates to oppose

bills that abridge or eliminate the Board of Supervisors powers and duties unless the

change promotes a higher priority of the Board, and Policy 3.14.1, which allows

opposition to legislation that imposes unreasonable burdens or creates unfunded

mandates to provide access to records and information managed and maintained by

County agencies.

9. Petitioner is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that the

Countys Legislative Agenda in operation at the time the letters opposing AB 194 were


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sent made no specific reference to AB 194. A true and correct copy of the Boards

2013/14 Legislative Agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit D. A true and correct copy

of the Statement of Proceedings of the Boards December 3, 2013 meeting, where the

2013/14 Legislative Agenda was amended, is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

10. On April 29, 2015, Mr. Francke sent correspondence to Mark J. Saladino,

County Counsel. A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached hereto as

Exhibit F. In that correspondence, Mr. Francke objects to the Countys Response

because the Board failed to provide an unconditional commitment, as set forth in

section 54960.2, to cease and desist from approving positions on particular bills

outside an open session of a Board meeting. Mr. Francke also gave the County another

opportunity to avoid litigation if the County responded by May 6 that the

unconditional commitment would be placed on the next public agenda.

11. Mr. Francke received no communication from the County Counsel or

from the Board in response to his April 29th correspondence.

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT

(RELIEF PURSUANT TO SECTION 54960; CCP SECTIONS 1060, 1085)

12. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates herein by this reference

Paragraphs 1 thorough 11 of this Petition as though set forth herein in full.

13. Section 54952.2(a),2 defines the term meeting as:

any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. 14. Section 54953 mandates that [a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a

local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any

meeting of the legislative body, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

2 Section 54952.2 contains exceptions not applicable here.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. Section 54952.2(b)(1) prohibits serial meetings:

A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.

16. Section 54952.6 defines action taken as:

a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance. 17. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the

Board violated the Brown Act by using a series of communications, either directly or

through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, and take action on specific legislation,

including at least AB 194, outside of a noticed and public meeting.

18. Section 54960(a) provides that any interested person, such as the

Petitioner:

may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to ongoing actions or threatened future actions of the legislative body, or to determine the applicability of this chapter to past actions of the legislative body, subject to Section 54960.2, or to determine whether any rule or action by the legislative body to penalize or otherwise discourage the expression of one or more of its members is valid or invalid under the laws of this state or of the United States, or to compel the legislative body to audio record its closed sessions as hereinafter provided. 19. Petitioner has complied with all notice and demand requirements set

forth in section 54960.2.

20. The Board has refused to acknowledge or unconditionally commit to

refrain from the conduct which Petitioner has alleged constitutes a violation of the

Brown Act.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21. The People of California have elevated the right to open government to

one protected by their State Constitution. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section

3, Paragraphs (a) - (b) state:

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good. The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.

22. Code of Civil Procedure 1060 provides:

Any person interested who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time.

23. There presently exists, between the Petitioner and the Board, an actual

controversy relating to: (1) the legal rights of Petitioner and other members of the

public under the Brown Act; and (2) the ministerial duties imposed upon the Board by

the Brown Act.

24. Petitioner requests a judicial determination that Respondent has violated,

and is likely to continue to violate, the Brown Act.

25. This determination is necessary and proper because Respondent refuses

to conform to the requirements of the Brown Act.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. Respondent has a ministerial duty to perform according to the laws of the

State of California, including the Brown Act.

27. Respondent has failed and refused to perform its ministerial duties as

required by the Brown Act.

28. Petitioner has a clear, present, and legal right to Respondent's

performance of its ministerial duties, as required by the Brown Act.

29. Respondent has a present legal duty and present ability to perform its

ministerial duties set forth in both the Brown Act.

30. Petitioner has an interest in having the laws executed and public duties

enforced and, therefore, has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

31. Through this action, Petitioner seeks no greater relief that would be

afforded to any other member of the public.

32. Petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies. Petitioner has

requested that the Board make a public and unconditional commitment not to take

positions on particular legislative bills outside of open and public meetings in the future

but Respondent refuses to do so. The only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy left to

Petitioner is the relief provided by sections 54960 and 54960.2.

WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:

1. For a declaration that Respondent LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS violated sections 54953 and 54952.2(b)(1) by using a series of

communications, either directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, and

take action on specific legislation, including at least AB 194, outside of a noticed and

public meeting.

2. For a peremptory writ of mandate to issue ordering Respondent LOS

ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS to perform as required by the Brown

Act;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION (C.C.P. 446 and 2015.5)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Sacramento,

I, Joseph T. Francke, am General Counsel for CALIFORNIANS AWARE, Petitioner in

the above-entitled action or proceeding. I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RALPH M.

BROWN ACT WITH EXHIBITS A THROUGH F and know the contents thereof, and I certify

that the same is true and correct of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are

therein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.

This Verification was executed on May 7, 2014, at Carmichael, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Joseph T. Francke

-1- VERIFICATION

CALIFORNIANS AWARE

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

EXHIBIT A Petition for Writ of Mandate

CALIFORNIANS AWARE

v.


EXHIBIT B Petition for Writ of Mandate

"February 9, 2015

Sachi A. HamaiExecutive Officer/Clerk BY EMAIL, FAX AND POSTAL MAILBoard of SupervisorsCounty of Los Angeles500 W. Temple St, Ste 383Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: Demand to Cease and Desist a Violation of theRalph M. Brown Act (Govt Code 54950 et seq.)

Dear Ms. Hamai,

This letter challenges a practice occurring in connection with the August 20, 2014 letter to the Legislature, a copy of which is attached hereto, personally signed by each of the Los Angeles County Supervisors, stating the Countys opposition to AB 194 (Campos).

The practice in question was the Board of Supervisors approval and communication to the Legislature of the Countys position on a legislative bill, which occurred without any discussion in an open session of a Board meeting concerning either the bill, its content or the Countys proposed position.

AB 194, a proposed amendment to the Ralph M. Brown Act, would have prohibited certain procedures by local government bodies that hamper citizen speakers in exercising their right to address these bodies at their meetings.

Specifically, the bill would have prohibited a local government body, or its presiding officer or staff, from hampering public participation by

using up the allotted time for disfavored citizen speakers by interrupting and challenging their comments;

forcing citizens to voice their comments on agenda items at the beginning of meetings before the body has heard the staff's presentation of those items; forbidding citizens from criticizing the actions of agency staff; or

treating speakers with more or less accommodation depending on whether their viewpoints are welcome or not.

The Supervisors letter distorted the bills provisions, asserting that

2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 487-7000 [email protected]

Cease and Desist Demand/Californians AwareFebruary 9, 2015Page 2 of 2

courts could interpret the bill to allow persons to speak at least twice on any, and potentially all, items on a legislative bodys agenda. In any case, the bill would certainly remove control of the meeting from the County, which would cause undue disruptions at public meetings.

This warning is utterly at odds with a provision of the Brown Act that has been in place for years and was unaffected by AB 194, namely the paragraph (Government Code Section 54954.3) immediately preceding the proposed amendments:

The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that (citizens are given the right to address the body at meetings), including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker, and the procedure for public comment on agenda items. (Emphasis added)

Had the Supervisors debated and adopted the letters content in an open meeting, their constituents, whose speech rights were directly affected, would have had the opportunity to contest, if not correct, the letters distorted representations. Ironically, however, the secret process for adopting a position on the bill violated the Brown Act in a manner that precluded any such public participation.

In order to avoid the filing of an action against the Board of Supervisors for declaratory and injunctive relief to confirm that the practice in question violated the Brown Act and to order it not to be repeated, and for the recovery of any attorney fees and costs incurred in such litigation, Californians Aware demands that Mayor Antonovich, within 30 days of the receipt of this letter and in conformity with Government Code Section 54960.2, subdivision (c), inform it of the Boards unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the practice herein challenged as a violation of the Act.

Very Truly Yours,

Terry FranckeGeneral Counsel


!2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 487-7000 [email protected]

! 2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 487-7000 [email protected]

CALIFORNIANS AWARE

v.


EXHIBIT C Petition for Writ of Mandate

~~F~~q COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES~S w~ x~fi

~~~~',`~N OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSELg :{~' ~' 648 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION{ ~

"' ~+ ~: 500 WEST Tk;MPLE STREET

~~~4

Terr FranckeMardi 13, 2015Page 2

Consistent with policies and legislative positions adopted by the Board atits public meeting on December 3, 2013, the CEO and Sacramento advocates hadauthority to oppose bills that abridge or eliminate the Board of Supervisors'powers and duties unless the change promotes a higher priority of the Board(General Policy No. 7); and to oppose legislation that imposes unreasonableburdens or creates unfunded mandates to provide access to records andinformation managed and maintained by County agencies (Policy 3.14.1).

When originally introduced, AB 194 proposed amending the Brown Act tomake it a misdemeanor for the chair of the legislative body to infringe on thepublic's right to comment during public meetings. AB 194 was subsequentlyamended striking the misdemeanor components and adding limitations whichforbid the legislative body of a local agency from prohibiting or limiting commentby a member of the public wishing to speak before the legislative body'sconsideration of an item, as well as during consideration, including comment bythose that fail to provide advance notice of comment. As AB 194 clearly soughtto abridge the powers of the Board of Supervisors to reasonably regulate publiccomment at its meetings, the County's advocates opposed AB 194 in accordancewith Board policy and the Legislative Agenda, as stated above.

The CEO routinely updated the Board and the public on its actions andefforts on the CEO's website. Specifically, the CEO published updates onFebruary 7, 2013, Apri15, 2013, January 14, 2014, June 27, 2014, July 22, 2014,and August 18, 2014, to ensure that the Board and the public were aware of theCEO's efforts to defeat the passage of AB 194. These updates are enclosed foryour reference. However, AB 194 was approved by the State Legislature, andthereafter, presented to the Governor for his signature.

In a final effort to defeat AB 194, the CEO prepared a letter to theGovernor, from the Board, to persuade the Governor to veto AB 194. The CEOviewed this act as furthering the Board's publicly approved policies and positionsin the State Legislature. The Governor ultimately vetoed AB 194 stating that"this bill adds certain procedures to the Brown Act, which at best will elongatebut in no way enhance the quality of debate at the local level."

We believe that the Board's approval of legislative policies and proceduresduring its public meeting on December 3, 2013, was clearly broad enough toauthorize all actions taken by the CEO to oppose AB 194, and that the CEO keptthe Board and the public well informed of its actions.

We would also note that the District Attorney reviewed allegationsidentical to yours in a complaint it received in November 2014. In response tothis complaint, our office provided the District Attorney with an overview of theCounty's process for sending five-signature letters, as described herein. We also

HOA.1136637.2

Terry FranckeMarch 13, 2015Page 3

informed the District Attorney that, to ensure greater transparency, the CEO hasbeen advised that authorization for five-signature letters should be placed on theBoard's agenda in advance of or during the County's legislative advocacy effortswith respect to particular bills.

The District Attorney determined that the five-signature letter did notconstitute an action as contemplated by the Brown Act, but was merely areiteration of the Board's opposition to AB 194 as already established by itsSacramento advocates under the direction of the CEO. Further, the DistrictAttorney concluded that, while all five Supervisors signed the letter, the letter waswritten by the CEO and, given that the Board's position on the bill was establishedlong before the letter was written, this procedure does not involvecommunications prohibited by the Brown Act. A copy of the District Attorney'sJanuary 29, 2015 opinion is enclosed for your reference.

In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, and without admitting anyviolation of the Brown Act, we reiterate that to ensure greater transparency, theCEO has been advised that authorization for five-signature letters should beplaced on the Board's agenda in advance of or during the County's legislativeadvocacy efforts with respect to particular bills.

Very truly yours,

MARK J.County C

LA`~'AY~Ii~TS 131. AL ERTYDeputy County C q~un 1Government Servile Division

APPROVED AND REL SED:

1V~RK . SALADINOCo ty Counsel

LRA:am

Enclosures

c: Board of Supervisors

Sachi A. Hamai, Interim Chief Executive Officer

Patrick Ogawa, Acting Executive OfficerBoard of Supervisors

HOA.1136637.2

~~~

THE GEt~ITER FOR FUBLlC f{?RUA1 R1GHT5

February 9, 2015

Sachi A. HamaiExecutive Officer /ClerkBoard of SupervisorsCounty of Los Angeles500 W. Temple St, Ste 383Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Hamai,

BY EMAIL, FAX AND POSTAL MAIL

RE: Demand to Cease and Desist a Violation of theRalph M. Brown Act (Gov't Code ~ 54950 et seq.)

This letter challenges a practice occurring in connection with the August 20, 2014 letter to the

Legislature, a copy of which is attached hereto, personally signed by each of the Los Angeles

County Supervisors, stating the County's opposition to AS 194 (Campos).

The practice in question was the Board of Supervisors' approval and communication to theLegislature of the County's position on a legislative bill, which occurred without anydiscussion in an open session of a Board meeting concerning either the bill, its content or the

County's proposed position.

AS 194, a proposed amendment to the Ralph M. Brown Act, would have prohibited certain

procedures by local government bodies that hamper citizen speakers in exercising their right

to address these bodies at their meetings.

Specifically, the bill would have prohibited a local government body, or its presiding officer or

staff, from hampering public participation byusing up the allotted time for disfavored citizen speakers by interrupting and

challenging their comments; forcing citizens to voice their comments on agenda items at the beginning of meetings

before the body has heard the staff's presentation of those items; forbidding citizens from criticizing the actions of agency staff; ortreating speakers with more or less accommodation depending on whether their

viewpoints are welcome or not.

The Supervisors' letter distorted the bill's provisions, asserting that

22'.8 Homewood Way *Carmichael, CA 95b08 ~ ;9~6) X87-7000 A terryC~calaware.or~

Cease and Desist Demand /Californians AwareFebruary 9, 2015Page 2 of 2

courts could interpret the bill to allow persons to speak at least twice on any, andpotentially all, items on a legislative body's agenda. In any case, the bill wouldcertainly remove control of the meeting from the County, which would cause unduedisruptions at public meetings.

This warning is utterly at odds with a provision of the Brown Act that has been in place foryears and was unaffected by AB 194, namely the paragraph (Government Code Section54954.3) immediately preceding the proposed amendments:

The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that(citizens are given the right to address the body at meetings), including, but not limitedto, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated foY public testimony on particularissues and for each individual speaker, and the procedure for public comment on agenda items.(Emphasis added)

Had the Supervisors debated and adopted the letter's content in an open meeting, theirconstituents, whose speech rights were directly affected, would have had the opportunity tocontest, if not correct, the letter's distorted representations. Ironically, however, the secretprocess for adopting a position on the bill violated the Brown Act in a manner that precludedany such public participation.

In order to avoid the filing of an action against the Board of Supervisors for declaratory andinjunctive relief to confirm that the practice in question violated the Brown Act and to order itnot to be repeated, and for the recovery of any attorney fees and costs incurred in suchlitigation, Californians Aware demands that Mayor Antonovich, within 30 days of the receiptof this letter and in conformity with Government Code Section 54960.2, subdivision (c), informit of the Board's unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the practiceherein challenged as a violation of the Act.

Very Truly Yours,

~~I-~Terry FranckeGeneral Counsel

2218 ~--~omet,~sood V~~y ~ Carrn'sc~ael, CA 95608 * z~ ~ ~) 48i-700 $ terryC~calaware.org

K ~F ~'~~ 4ti~~~'` ~~`~~x~F~~ MEMBERS pFTtIE BOARDCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

'`' ~~,t BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

G(,08tAfit0[1NA

~ q 7~

l:ENNETH HAHN HALf.OF ADbQNISTAATION MARK RIDLEY-THOSLLS"[REEL'.

~

;~ ..'~ .~ ~ SOO VL'EST Z'EMPIE S ROOM 383x ~

C"Q1IFORNtaIAS ANGE[.ES. C~IdFORNLt 9(gt2 y~V YnROSLAVSRY(zt3) ~~s-tai ~ Fnx izu} ~m~3~

DON ANAHE

SACHI A. HAMAIEXECIiT[VE OFFICER

August 20, 2014

OPPOSE

M[CHAEL D. AN70NOYICH

RE: AB 194 (Campos) Open Meetings: Public Criticism and Comment

Dear Members of the Legislature:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to County-opposed AB 994 (Campos),which would forbid the legislative body of a local agency at their public meetings fromprohibiting or limiting comment by a member of the public wishing to speak before thefegislafive body's consideration of an item, as well as during consideration, includingcomment try those why fail to provide advance notice of comment.

lYie Ralph M. Brown Act provides along-standing :and effective framework in which to holda meeting of a local legislative body so that it allows the public with the .opportunity to attendand participate. As proposed, AB 194 runs in conflict with the Brown Acf provisions thatallow local agencies to establish reasonable rules to efficiently manage their meetings andthe public's participation.

in amending subdivision (a) of Gvvemment Code Section 54954.3, AB 1.94 is ambiguouswith respect to when and how often a member of the public must be a((owed to speak on anitem on the agenda. However, courts could interpret the bi(( to allow persons to speak atleast twice on any, and potentially all, items on a legislative body's agenda. In any case,the bill certainly would remove contro{ of the meeting from the County, which would causeundue disruptions at public meetings. This would particularly affect largerjurisdictions, suchas Los Angeles County, where the number of individuals seeking to address the Board canreach the hundreds, and when up to 90 agenda items can be considered en one meetingalone. This measure would notably hinder the Board's ability at their public meetings tomake critical program and policy decisions in a timely and .cost efFec ve manner.Los Angeles County already has an open and effective system to manage its publicmeetings, and AB 194 wou{d work against the Board's deliberate efforts which grant eachpublic member an equal amount of time #o comment on any particular agenda item.

l-he County of Los Angeles strongly supports and is committed to the transparency that theBrown Act affords members of the public; however, AB 194,. in conflicting with currentstatutes and effective pracfices, would. jeopardize operational effectiveness and ultimately,the intent ofi the Brown Act.

2218 Homev~~c~oc~ VV~y * C~rr~~ich~a~ 1, CA 95b08 4 {9 G) ~8i-7000 * terrv(~calaware.org

For those reasons, we respectfully request your "NO" vote on A8 194.

ZEV YAR S VSKYSupervi bird Districf

c: Assembly Member Campos

K RIDLEY-TH MASrvisor, Second District

MICHAEL D. ANTON~?VIGHSupervisor, Fifth District

22 i 8 Hor~,ewr~od Way ~ Carrnicha~l, CA 95608 ;91 G) d87-7000 ~ terry~calaware.org

2218 Hc~mewc~od Way ~ Carr~~icha~l, CA 95bOS ~ ~91b} ~~7-700C ~ terrvC~calaware.org

County of Los AngelesCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFfCE

Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration500 West Temple Sfreet, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 9741101http://ceo.lacounty.gov

WILLIAM T FUJIOKA BoardafsupervisorsChief Executive Officer GLORIA MOLINAFirst District

MARK RIDLEY-THOMASSecond DisUict

ZEV YAROSLAVSKYThird District

February 7, 2Q13 DON KNASEFourth DistrictMICWAEL D. ANTONOVECNFifth District

To: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Don KnabeSupervisor Michael D. Antonovich

Fram: William T FujiokaChief Executive Officer

SACRAMENTO UPDATE

Executive Summary

This memorandum provides an update on the following:

A pursuit of position on County-sponsored legislation that would amend AB 109(Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011) to prohibit individuals who have been previouslycertified as a Mentally Disordered Offender or Mentally Disordered SexualOffender from being released from State prison or a State Hospital to countyPost-Release Community Supervision.

A report on legislation of County interest, AB 194 (Campos}, related to theBrown Act, which would make it a misdemeanor for the chairperson of a localgoverning body to prohibit public criticism of the agency's services and relatedactivities or the acts of the legislative body.

Pursuit of County-Sponsored Legislation

As a result of the 2011 Public Safety Realignment and AB 109 which transferredresponsibility for certain offenders from the State to counties, individuals who arecertified as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) ar a Mentally Disordered Sex

"To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service"

Please Conserve Paper- THis Document and Cop+es are Two-Sided/nba-Counfy Correspondence Sent electronically Only

Each SupervisorFebruary 7, 2013Page 2

Offender (MDSO} at the time of release from State prison are not eligible for countysupervision under Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). However, sinceimplementation of AB 109 in October 2011, a number of individuals who haveMDO/MDSO certifications during previous prison commitments have been released tocounties under PRCS. In addition, some individuals who were certified a MDO/MDSOwere subsequently de-certified prior to release from State prison, while undergoingtreatment at a State hospital or while on State Parole and transferred to PRCS.

According to the Probation Department, individuals who have been certified as anMDO/MDSO have severe mental health disorders, committed crimes that involvedviolence or grave bodily injury and were deemed to represent a substantial danger ofphysical harm to others. Many of these individuals have long and violent criminalhistories, often become treatment and medication non-compliant, self-medicate withillicit drugs, and are often transient and very difficult to supeniise.

The supervision needs and public safety implications of this population are complex.The trend of de-certification of MDO/MDSOs and transfer to PRCS is particularlytroublesome. Many of these individuals have been deemed unfit for publictransportation and have required the Probation Department to transport them from aState prison or State hospital, several have required immediate 5750 psychiatricevaluations and all have been assessed as ultra-high risk with multiple risk factors.Most of these individuals remain unfit for public transportation and require continuedtransportation services to housing and treatment facilities while on PRCS and all requireintensive supervision, such as GPS surveillance, as a result of their risk level and threatto public safety.

The certification process for MDOs is rigorous and this small, but very high-risk,population requires on-going, consistent and specialized treatment services, andintensive supervision when released to the community.

The Probation Department and this office firmly believe that the transfer of de-certifiedMDO/MDSOs to PRCS is in conflict with the intent of the 2011 Public SafetyRealignment and that State supervision remains the most appropriate level ofmonitoring for the high-risk and high-need MDO/MDSO population.

Therefore, consistent with Board policy to support legislation that would prohibit theState from releasing a State prison inmate to Post-Release Community Supervisionunder AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011) if that inmate has been previouslydesignated a Menta4(y Disordered Offender or Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender, theSacramento advocates will, unless otherwise directed by the Board, actively

NlSacramento Updates 2013/sotto 020713

Each SupervisorFebruary 7, 2Q13Page 3

pursue County-sponsored legislation to prohibit these individuals from beingreleased to County supervision.

Legislation of Coun#v Interest

AB 194 (Campos) which, as introduced on January 28, 2013, would make it amisdemeanor for the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agency to prohibitpublic criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or ofthe acts or omissions of the legislative body, as protected under the Brown Act.

The Brown Act requires, with certain exceptions, that a!I meetings of a local governingbody be open and public, permitting all persons to attend and participate. In addition,the Brown Act provides that the legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibitpublic criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or ofthe acts or omissions of the legislative body.

As introduced, AB 194 would amend provisions of the Brown Act and make it amisdemeanor for a member of a legislative body, while acting as the chairperson of alegislative body of a local agency, to prohibit public criticism. The bill would furtherauthorize a district attorney or an interested party to commence the process to obtainjudicial determination as to whether an action taken by a local governing body is inviolation of this statute. Under this process, a local agency could opt to take correctiveaction.

In its preliminary analysis, the Executive Office of the Board indicates that AB 194 couldsignificantly impact the Board of Supervisors and the Executive Office by encouragingmembers of the public to file court actions against the Chair of the Board, as well as thechairs of County commissions and committees. This could lead to major difficulties inmanaging open meetings in an appropriate and timely fashion. In addition, theExecutive Office notes that AB 194 may also pose a serious problem in persuadingcitizen volunteers on County commissions and committees to serve as chairs of theirrespective legislative bodies once they are aware that they could become the subject ofcriminal prosecution.

This office and County Counsel concur with the concerns posed by the Executive Officeof the Board. In addition, County Counsel notes that the proposed language isoverbroad and inconsistent with other Government Code sections. For example, underAB 194, a chair could be guilty of a misdemeanor for imposing a time limit on a speakerwho is criticizing the board even if the chair is justly imposing acontent-neutral timelimit. County Counsel also notes that the bill's proposed language is also overbroad inthat it imposes a misdemeanor with no exceptions, and we concur.

N/Sacramento Updates 2013/sacto 020713

Each SupervisorFebruary 7, 2013Page 4

AB 194 is currently in the Assembly pending referral to committee.

This once will continue to monitor and work with the Executive Office of the Board,County Counsel and other departments, such as the District Attorney, to prepare acomprehensive analysis and report back to the Board with recommendations.

We will continue to keep you advised.

WTF:RAMR:KA:IGEA:ma

c: All Department HeadsLegislative StrategistLocal 721Coalition of County UnionsCalifornia Contract Cities AssociationIndependent Cities AssociationLeague of California CitiesCity Managers AssociationsBuddy Program Participants

N/Sacramento Updates 20131sacto 020713

County of Los AngelesCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

Kenneth Hahn Hali ofAdminisfration500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 974-1101htEp:Ilceo.lacounty.gov

WILLIAM T FUJIOKA ~ Board of5uperv'ssorsChief Executive. O~cer ~ GLORIA MOLiNAFirst District

PlARK RIDLEY-THOMASSecond District


DON ICNABEFourth District

Apri15, 2O~ 3 Ni1CHAEL D. ANTONOVICHFifth District

To: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Don KnabeSupervisor Michael D. Antonovich

From: William T FujiokaChief Executive Officer

SACRAMENTO UPDATE

Executive Summary

This memorandum provides an update on the following:

Pursuit of County Position to Oppose AB 194 (Campos). This measurewould amend the Brown Act to make it a misdemeanor for the chairperson of alocal legislative body to prohibit public criticism of the agency's services andrelated activities. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Board, consistentwith existing policy related to abridgement or elimination of the Board ofSupervisors' powers and duties, and policy to appose the imposition ofunreasonable burdens to provide access to information managed by Countyagencies, the Sacramento advocates will oppose AB 194.

Status of County-Sponsored Legislation

o County-Sponsored AB 246 (Bradford] - related to the Brown Act passedthe Assembly Local Government Committee on April 3, 2013.


F'/ease Conserve Paper This Document and Copies are Two-SidedInfra-Counfy Correspondence Sent Electronically Only

Each SupervisorApril 5, 2013Page 2

Status of County-Advocacy Legislation

o County-Opposed AB 218 (Dickinson) - related to public employmentpractices passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Apri12, 2013.

o County-Supported SB 20 (Hernandez) - related to student loanrepayment assistance for recently licensed physicians passed the SenateHealth Committee on April 3, 2013.

o County-Supported SB 402 (De Leong - re{ated to the Ten Stepsto Successful Breastfeeding passed the Senate Health Committee onApril 3, 2013.

Lectislation of Countv Interest

AB 194 (Campos), which as introduced on January 28, 2013, would make it amisdemeanor for the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agency to prohibitpublic criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or ofthe acts or omissions of the legislative body, as protected under the Brown Act.

The Brown Act requires, with certain exceptions, that all meetings of a local legislativebody be open and public, permitting all persons to attend and participate. The Actdisallows a local agency from prohibiting public criticism of its policies, procedures,programs, or services. In addition, the Act allows local agencies to establish reasonablerules to manage and conduct public comment, in effect designating open meetings aslimited public forums, in which time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible.

As introduced, AB 194 would amend the Brown Act to make it a misdemeanor for thechairperson of a legislative body to prohibit public criticism of the legislative body. Thebill would further authorize a district attorney or an interested party to commence judicialdetermination as to whether an action taken by a local governing body is in violation ofthis statute, and therefore, is null and void.

The Executive Office of the Board indicates that AB 194 could significantly impact theBoard of Supervisors and the Executive Office by encouraging members of the public tofile court actions against the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, as well as the chairs forthe dozens of County commissions and committees. The Executive Office of the Boardnotes that under AB 194, in certain cases it could be very difficult for a chairperson toenforce appropriate time limits for public comment and to distinguish betweenlegitimate, protected criticism of a legislative body from unwarranted and/or personal



abuse. This could lead to major difficulties in managing open meetings in anappropriate and timely fashion. In addition, the Executive Office of the Board notes thatthe bill may pose a serious problem in persuading citizen volunteers on Countycommissions and committees to serve as chairs of their respective legislative bodiesonce they are aware of the extent of this statute. Such reluctance would negativelyimpact the operations of commissions such as the civil service, employee relations,other regulatory commissions, joint power authorities and non-profit corporation boards.

County Counsel concurs with the concerns expressed by the Executive Office of theBoard, noting that the proposed language is overbroad and inconsistent with exiting lawwhich allows the legislative body of a local agency to adopt reasonable rules, such astime limits, for public comment. Under AB 194, a chair could be guilty of amisdemeanor for imposing a time limit on a speaker who is criticizing the board even ifthe chair is justly imposing acontent-neutral time limit. County Counsel notes that aboard or commission can be cleared of wrongdoing civilly, but still convicted of amisdemeanor, in effect making the standard for a criminal conviction lower.

This office and the Executive Office ofi the Board oppose AB 194. County Counselconcurs with this recommendation. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Board,consistent with existing policies to oppose: 1) any abridgement or elimination of theBoard of Supervisors' powers and duties unless the change promotes a higher priorityof the Board; and 2) legislation that imposes unreasonable burdens or creates unfundedmandates to provide access to records, information managed and maintained byCounty agencies, the Sacramento advocates will oppose AB 194.

AB 194 is opposed by the California State Association of Counties, Urban CountiesCaucus, Rural County Representatives of California and California Association of Clerksand Election Officials. There is no registered support on file.

This measure is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Loca{ Government Committeeon April 24, 2013.


County-sponsored AB 246 (Bradford), which as introduced on February 6, 2013,would amend the Brown Act to add the Governor to the existing list of officials whomlocal governing bodies can meet in closed session with on specified matters of security,passed the Assembly Local Government Committee by a vo#e of 9 to 0 on April 3, 2013.This measure now proceeds to the Assembly Floor.

N/Sacramento Updates 2013/sotto 040513


Status of County-Advocacv Legislation

County-opposed AB 218 (Dickinsonj, which as introduced on February 4, 2013,would prohibit a State or local agency from inquiring about criminal history on anyinitial employment application, except where otherwise required by law, passed theAssembly Judiciary Committee by a vote of 6 to 3 on April 2, 2013. This measure nowproceeds to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

County-supported SB 20 (Hernandez), which as amended February 14, 2013, wouldrequire funds deposited into the Managed Care Administrative Fines and PenaltiesFund in excess of $1.0 million, plus interest, to be used for the Steven M. ThompsonPhysician Corps Loan Repayment Program to provide student loan repaymentassistance to recently licensed physicians who practice in health professional shortageareas in California, passed the Senate Health Committee by a vote of 9 to 0 onApril 3, 2013. This measure now proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

County-supported SB 402 (De Leon), which as introduced on February 20, 2013,would require all general acute care and special hospitals that have a perinatal unit toadopt the Ten Steps to Successful BreastFeeding by January 1, 2020, passed theSenate Health Committee by a vote of 7 to 3 on April 3, 2013. This measure nowproceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.


WTF:RAMR:VE:PC:ma

c: All Department HeadsLegislative StrategistLaca) 721Coalition of County UnionsCalifornia Contract Cities AssociationIndependent Cities AssociationLeague of California CitiesCity Managers AssociationsBuddy Program Participants


WILLIAM T FUJIOKAChief Executive Officer


Kenneth Hahn Hali of Administration500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 974-'E 101http://ceo.laco unty.gov

January 74, 2014

To: Supervisor Don Knabe, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Mark Ridley-ThomasSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich


SACRAMENTO UPDATE

Executive Summary

This memorandum contains reports on the following:

Change of County Position on Legislation

Board of SupervisorsGLORIA MOLINAFirst District

MARK RIDLEY-THOMASSecond District


DON KNABEFourth District

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVtCHFifth District

o County-opposed SB 673 (DeSaulnier) - previously related to costbenefit analyses far proposed developments, as gutted-and-amended onJanuary 6, 2014, now relates to the Contra Costa County Board ofRetirement; therefore, the Sacramento advocates will remove theCounty's position to this bill and take no position.


o County-sponsored SB 827 (Liu) - related to the County's EnhancedHomeowner Fraud Notification Program, was introduced on January 6,2014.


o County-opposed AB 194 (Campos) -which as amended on January 6,2014, would allow a district attorney or any interested party to commencejudicial determination to declare an action taken by a local governing bodyas null and void if it is determined that the legislative body violated theBrown Act's public comment provisions. As amended, AB 194 could


Please Conserve Paper This Document and Copies are Two-SidedInfra-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only

Each SupervisorJanuary 14, 2014Page 2

subject the County to costly and lengthy litigation, as well as hold criticalBoard actions pending legal determination. Therefore, unless otherwisedirected by the Board, consistent with adopted policy related toabridgement or elimination of the Board of Supervisors' powers and dutiesand to the imposition of unreasonable burdens to provide access toinformation managed by local agencies, the Sacramento advocates willcontinue to oppose AB 194.

Legislation of County Interest

o AB 471 (Atkins) -which as gutted and amended on January 6, 2014,relates to infrastructure financing districts (IFDs), is being reviewed by thisoffice, County Counsel, the Auditor-Controller's office, and the CommunityDevelopment Commission to determine any potential impact to theCounty.

Chance of County Posi#ion on Legislation

County-opposed SB 673 (DeSaulnier), which as amended on May 21, 2073, wouldhave required a city, county, or city and county to ensure a cost benefit analysis beprepared prior to approving or disapproving a proposed development project estimatedto receive over $1.0 million in subsides, was gutted and amended on January 6, 2014.As amended, the bill would now authorize the Contra Costa County Board of Retirementto appoint a retirement administrator and other personnel as required to accomplish thenecessary work of the board, among other provisions.

Ali provisions related to the approval or disapproval of proposed development projectsby cities and counties have been removed. Therefore, the Sacramento advocate willremove the County's position to this bill and take no position.


County-sponsored SB 827 (Liu}, as introduced on January 6, 2014, would extend toJanuary 1, 2020 the authorization (County-sponsored SB 62 of 2011) that allowsLos Angeles County to send notifications to occupants of a residential property when anotice of default or notice of sale has been recorded on that residence and provides forcounseling and assistance to all notification recipients. SB 827 is in the Senate pendingassignment to committee.




County-opposed AB 194 (Campos), which as introduced on January 28, 2013, wouldhave made it a misdemeanor for the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agencyto prohibit public criticism of the agency's services and activities, was amended onJanuary 6, 2014.

As amended, AB 194 would allow a district attorney or any interested party tocommence judicial determination to declare an action taken by a local governing bodyas null and void if it is determined that the legislative body violated the Ralph M. BrownAct (Brown Act) provisions that provide members of the public an opportunity to addressthe legislative body on items being considered at their regular or special meetings.

The Executive Office of the Board indicates that AB 194 could significantly impact theCounty by encouraging members of the public to file court actions against the Boardand other County boards, committees and commissions. The Executive Office notesthat because the Brown Act allows local agencies to es#ablish reasonable rules tomanage and conduct public comment, what could constitute a violation is open tobroader interpretation. As such, AB 194 could encourage members of the pubic to filemany claims on various grounds, potentially subjecting the County to additional costlyand lengthy litigation. In addition, because actions taken in alleged violation would besubject to being declared null and void, a local agency would theoretically be unable tomove forward with critical and time-sensitive Board actions pending judicialdetermination. The Executive Office indicates that in the extreme case, it is possiblethat actions taken at an entire meeting or multiple meetings could be declared null andvoid if the legislative body's rules for public comment were generally deemed by a courtto be in violation. This could lead to major operational difficulties in managing themeetings of the legislative body and conversely, the larger local agencyoperations. County Counsel concurs with the concerns posed by the Executive Officenoting that the proposed language is overbroad.

This office and the Executive Office recommend continued opposition ofAB 194. County Counsel concurs with this recommendation. Therefore, consistent withBoard approved policies to oppose: 1) any abridgement or elimination of the Board ofSupervisors' powers and duties unless the change promotes a higher priority of theBoard and 2) legislation that imposes unreasonable burdens or creates unfundedmandates to provide access to records, information managed and maintained byCounty agencies, and unless otherwise directed by the Board, the Sacramentoadvocates will continue to oppose AB 194.

NlSacramento Updafes 2014lsacto 011414


AB 194 is opposed by the California State Association of Counties; Urban CountiesCaucus; Rural County Representatives of California; and California Association ofClerks and Election Officials. There is no registered support on file.

AB 194 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly focal Government Committee onJanuary 15, 2014.

Legislation of Countv Interest

AB 471 {Atkins), which as introduced on February 19, 2013, would have eliminated astatutory limit on the number of State contracts with Program for All Inclusive Care ofthe Elderly (PACE) organizations, was gutted and amended on January 6, 2014. Asamended the bill now would allow an Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) to includeportions of former redevelopment project areas, and make several changes to the lawsgoverning the dissolution of redevelopment agencies (RDAs).

Specifically, this bit! would:

1) Allow an IFD to include portions of former redevelopment project area and tofinance a project or portion of a project that is located in, or overlaps with, aredevelopment project area or former redevelopment project area;

2) Authorize a successor agency to amend an existing contract or agreementrelated to long-term enforceable obligations, or enter into a new contract oragreement in furtherance of an existing contract or agreement, for the purpose ofadministering projects in connection with long-term enforceable obligations, if theexisting contract or agreement has been approved by the Department of finance(DOF);

3) Prohibit any amendment ofcontract or agreement, frombeyond the funding that wasagreement;

~n existing contract or agreement, or any newcommitting any new funding from any sourcepreviously authorized in the existing contract or

4) Prohibit the amending of an existing contract or agreement, or any new contractor agreement, from otherwise adversely affecting the flow of property taxrevenues or payments made to taxing entities;



5) Authorize a successor agency to schedule Recognized Obligation PaymentSchedule CROPS) payments beyond the existing ROPS cycle upon showing thata lender requires cash on hand beyond the ROPS payment cycle or that apayment is due during the ROPS cycle;

6) Require a successor agency to provide notice to the oversight board at least10 days prior to entering into a con#ract or agreement for the use or disposition ofproperties, as specified;

7) Authorize the oversight board to notify the successor agency during that 10-dayperiod that it intends to conduct a public hearing to determine whether thecontract or agreement is consistent with the successor agencies' {ong-rangeasset management plan;

8) Require that, on January 2, 2014, and twice yearly thereafter until June 1, 2018,funds be a{located to cover the housing entity administrative cast allowance of alocal housing authority that has assumed the housing duties of the formerredevelopment agency, as specified, before remaining moneys are distributed tolocal agencies and school entities;

9) Define the term "housing entity administrative cost allowance" for thesepurposes; and

10) Define the term "identified in an approved redevelopment plan" to includeproperties listed in a community plan or a 5-year implementation plan.

This bill is an urgency measure and would take effect immediately if enacted.

AB 471 is. a reintroduction of AB 662 (Atkins) of 2013, which was vetoed by theGovernor on October 11. 2013. In his veto message, the Governor noted the lanauageto authorize new or amended contracts to existing enforceable obligations could resultin unintended costs to the State General Fund. The Governor also directed hisadministration to work with the author in 2014 to make changes to the bill's language ina manner that would avoid these costs.

The bill is supported by the City of West Sacramento; Infi{I Builder Federation; BRIDGEHousing; Mission Bay Development Group; and Strada Investment. Opposition toAB 471 is unknown at this time.

N/Sacramento Updates 2014/5acto 011414


This office is working with County Counsel, the Auditor-Controller's office, and

the Community Development Commission to review the provisions of the bill and

the revised language to determine any potential impact to the County.

AB 471 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on

January 15, 2014.


WTF:RAMR:PC:IGEA:ma

c: All Department HeadsLegislative Strategist

N/Sacramento Updates 2014lsacto 011414


June 27, 2014


Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 9741101http:/lceo.lacou nty.gov

To: Supervisor Don Knabe, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Mark Ridley-ThomasSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich


SACRAMENTO UPDATE

Executive Summary

This memorandum contains reports on the fo{lowing:


MARK R{DLEY-THOMASSecond District

ZEV YAROSLAVSKYThird DisVict


MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICHFifth District

Legislative Deadlines. A report on the legislative deadline to pass bills out ofpolicy committees in the second house.

Status of County-Advocacy Legislation. Updates on 11 County-advocacymeasures related to: 1) the Brown Act; 2) driver's licenses for veterans;3) parental fees for State preschools; 4) workers' compensation presumptions;5) disability payments for peace officers; 6) redevelopment successor agencies;7) job-related injuries of hospital employees; 8) child care and developmentprograms; 9) design-build contract process; 10) drug free counseling services;and 17) redevelopment dissolution.

Status of Legislation of County Interest. Updates on four measures ofsignificant interest to the County related to: 1) filling vacancies on county boardsof supervisors; 2} social impact partnerships pilot program; 3) increasing theState minimum wage; and 4) licensing marijuana dispensing facilities.


Please Conserve Paper This Document and Copies are Two-SidedIntro-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only

Each SupervisorJune 27, 2014Page 2

Leaislative Deadlines

(n advance of today's legislative deadline to pass bills out ofi policy committees in thesecond house, the Legislature took action on numerous measures this week includingthe County-advocacy measures and bills of County interest reported below. Bills that

were held or not passed by policy committees will not proceed this year. Both theAssembly and Senate have adjourned until Monday, June 30, 2014.


County-opposed AB 194 (Campos), which as amended on January 27, 2014, wouldallow a district attorney or any interested parly to commence judicial determination todeclare an ac#ion taken by a local governing body as null and void if it is determined thatthe legislative body violated the Brown Act's public comment provisions, was amendedon June 17, 2014.

As amended, AB 194 removes the null and void provisions, and instead would furtherforbid the legislative body from prohibiting or limiting specified public criticismprocesses, including prohibiting comment by a member of the public: 1) on an itemafter the introductory presentation has been made and before the body takes action; or2) during presentation of the item if the member has failed to provide notice of his or herdesire to comment at the beginning of the meeting. The Executive Office of the Boardnotes that while these amendments remove the County's original concerns, the newprovisions, as broadly written, could allow members of the public to speak on the sameitem more than once and/or without timely notice, thereby allowing for undue disruptionsat public meetings. Therefore, unless otherwise instructed by the Board, theSacramento Advocates will continue to oppose AB 194.

This measure passed the Senate Governance and Finance by a vote of 5 to 2 onJune 25, 2014, and now proceeds to the Senate Floor.

County-supported AB 935 (Frazier), which as amended on June 9, 2014,wouEd: 1) allow an applicant for a California driver's license or identification card,commencing November 11, 2015, to request that the driver's license or identificationcard be printed with the word "VETERAN"; 2) require the applicant to present tothe California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) proof of veteran status; and3) require county veterans service offices to verify an applicant's veteran status forthese purposes, passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee by a vote of10 to 0 on June 26, 2014. This measure now proceeds to the Senate AppropriationsCommittee.



County-supported AB '1902 (Boma), which as amended on April 9, 2014, would

eliminate the current requirement to assess fees on low-income families with children

who attend apart-day State preschool program, was scheduled to be heard by the

Senate Education Committee on June 24, 2014, but was pulled at the request of the

author. This measure will not proceed this year. The Chief Executive Office -Office of

Child Care notes that the State's approved budget for FY 2014-15 repeals the family

fees for part-day State Preschool, as AB 1902 would have done.

County-opposed AB 2052 (Gonzalez), which as amended on April 8, 2014,would extend certain workers' compensation presumptions to all employees that fall

under the statutory definition of peace officer, passed the Senate Labor and Industrial

Relations Committee by a vote of 5 to 0 on June 25, 2014. This measure now proceeds

to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

County-opposed AB 2378 {Perea), which as amended on May 23, 2014, would allowthe payment of Labor Code 4850 disability benefits, special leaves of absence without

loss of pay benefits to certain peace officers, in addition to the maximum benefits

allowed for temporary disability payments, passed the Senate Labor and Industrial

Relations Committee by a vote of 5 to Q on June 25, 2014. This measure now proceedsto the Senate Appropriations Committee.

County-opposed AB 2493 (Bloom), which as amended on June 10, 2014,would: 1) authorize a redevelopment successor agency or housing successor entity todesignate the use of, and commit, proceeds from indebtedness that was issued for

affordable housing or redevelopment purposes prior to June 28, 2011; and 2) requirethe proceeds from bonds issued befineen January 1, 2011 and June 28, 2011, be used

for projects meeting certain criteria established in this bill, to be funded by successoragencies generally, from proceeds of bonds issued during the same period, passed the

Senate Governance and Finance Committee by a vote of 4 to 1 on June 25, 2014. This

measure now proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

County-opposed AB 2616 (Skinner), which as amended on April 29, 2014, wouldexpand the presumption of job-related injuries to cover hospital employees formethicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, a skin infection, passed the Senate Labor

and Industrial Relations Committee by a vote of 5 to 0 on June 25, 2014. This measure

now proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

County-supported SB 192 (Liu), which as amended on June '!8, 2014, would:1) redefine center-based child care and development programs as direct early {earningprograms; 2) consolidate contracts for direct early learning programs; 3) require childcare agencies to provide families with consumer education; and 4) make other changes

NlSacramento Updates 2014/sacto 062714


to reflect existing practices and qualitative measures, passed the Assembly Education

Committee by a vote of 6 to 0 on June 25, 2014. This measure now proceeds to the

Assembly Appropriations Committee.

County-supported SB 785 (Wolk), which as amended on January 14, 2014, wouldenact uniform provisions authorizing local agencies to utilize the design-build contr

act

procurement process and lower the project cost threshold to $1.0 million, was amendedon June 77, 2Q14.

As amended, the bill now deletes the provisions that would have required local agencies

to reimburse the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for its costs related tomonitoring and enforcing prevailing wage compliance. The Department of Public Works

(DPW) reports that the recently enacted General Government Omnibus Trailer Bill{SB 854, Chapter 28, Statues of 2014) deleted the requirement of current law thatrequires local agencies to pay the DIR's costs for monitoring and enforcing complian

ce

with prevailing wage requirements as a cost of construction, and would instead require

a contractor or subcontractor, beginning July 1, 2014, to register with the DIR and pay

an annual renewal fee of $340 to cover these costs.

The amendments also add the following minimum factors to the criteria used to evaluate

design-build proposals: 1) price; 2) technical design and construction expertise; and3) life-cycle costs over 15 or more years. The DPW indicates that it already includesthese criteria in their evaluation of design-build proposals.

The Department of Public Works and this office continue to support SB 785 as

amended. Therefore, unless otherwise instructed by the Board, the Sacramento

Advocates will continue to support SB 785.

SB 785 passed the Assembly Local Government Committee by a vote of 7 to 2 on

June 25, 2014. This measure now proceeds to the Assembly Appropriations

Committee.

County-supported SB 1045 {Beall}, which as amended on June 19, 2014, wouldrequire that an outpatient group setting in which drug free counseling services are

provided consist of no less than two individuals and no more than 12 individuals,

passed the Senate Floor by a vote of 29 to 0 on June 26, 2014. This measure now

proceeds to the Governor.

County-oppose-unless-amended SB 1129 (Steinberg), which as amended onMay 27, 2014, would: 1) authorize a successor agency, if it has received a Finding ofCompletion from the Department of Finance {DOF}, to enter into or amend existing



contracts and agreements, or otherwise administer projects in connection withenforceable obligations, if the contract, agreement, or projects will not commit newproperty tax funds or otherwise adversely affect the flow of tax revenues or

payments to

the taxing agencies; 2) include within the definition of "enforceable obligation" an

agreement entered in#o between the redevelopment agency prior to June 30, 2011, if

the agreement relates to State highway infrastructure improvements to which the

redevelopment agency committed funds; 3) authorize a successor agency to use

proceeds from bonds issued during the 2011 calendar year, upon approval of the

oversight board, if the use of those bond proceeds is consistent with the sustainable

communities strategy adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO);

4) specify that a compensation agreemen# between taxing entities is not required for the

disposition of properties pursuant to a long-range property management pion (LRPMP)

and prohibit DOF from requiring compensation agreements as part of the approval of a

LRPMP; 5) specify that DOF shall only consider whether the LRPMP makes a good

faith effort to inventory ail the properties and also addresses the use or disposition of all

the properties; and 6) delete the requirement that DOF approve a LRPMP by January 1,

2015, and instead, require DOF to approve the LRPMPs as expeditiously as possible,

among other provisions, passed the Assembly Housing and Community Development

Committee by a vote of 5 to 1 on June 25, 2014. This measure now proceeds to the


Status of Legislation of County Interest

AB 1862 (Melendez), which as amended on June 15, 2014, would authorize a vacancy

on a county board of supervisors, excepting those of charter counties, to be filled by a

quorum of the board within 9Q days of vacancy, failed to pass the Senate Governance

and Finance Committee by a vote of 3 to 4 on June 25, 2074, and was subsequently

granted reconsideration.

SB 593 (Lieu), which as amended on June 10, 2014, would: 1) authorize the Governor

to enter into at least three social impact partnerships each fiscal year to address policies

or programs not currently funded by the State, to address components of State

programs to improve outcomes or lower State costs, to reduce recidivism and child

abuse and neglect, or to assist at-risk and foster children, provided that the social

impact partnership is not used to operate entire State programs; 2) require a contract fora social impact partnership to be submitted to the Legislature as part of the Governo

r's

proposed budget, and any funding necessary for that fiscal year to be included in the

Governor's proposed budget for the State agency that would administer or oversee the

contract; and 3) sunset the bi11's provisions by January 1, 2020; among other provisions.

N/Sacramento Updates 2014/sotto 062774


SB 593 passed the Assemb{y Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy

Committee, with amendments, by a vote of 7 to 0 on June 24, 2014. The amendments

approved in committee, which are not yet in print, include clarifying that the Governor is

prohibited from entering into a contract without funding approval by the Legislature.

This measure now proceeds to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 935 (Leno), which as amended on March 27, 2014, would increase the State

minimum wage to $11.00 an hour on January 1, 2015, to $12.00 an hour on January 1,2016, and to $13.00 an hour on January 1, 2017, and thereafter, adjusts it annuallybased on inflation, failed to pass the Assembly Labor and Employment Comm

ittee by a

vote of 3 to 1 on June 25, 2014, and was subsequently granted reconsideration.

SB 1262 (Correa), which as amended on June 15, 2014, would require the California

Department of Consumer Affairs to license marijuana dispensing facilities, cultivationsites, and processing facilities, passed the Assembly Public Safety Com

mittee, with

amendments, by a vote of 6 to 1 on June 26, 2014. This measure now proceeds to the



WFF:RAMR:PC:IGEA:ma

c: All Department HeadsLegislative StrategistLocal 721Coalition of County UnionsCalifornia Contract Cities AssociationIndependent Cities AssociationLeague of California CitiesCity Managers AssociationsBuddy Program Participants



To

I,'~'ii


Kenneth Hafin Hall of Administration500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 974-1101http://ceo. facou nty. gov

July 22, 2014

Supervisor Don Knabe, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Mark Ridley-ThomasSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich

William T FujiokaChief Executive Officer

SACRAMENTO UPDATE

This memorandum contains reports on the following:

Change in Position on County-Advocacy Legislation.


MARK RIDLEY-THOMASSecond District

2EV YAROSLAVSKYThird District


MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICHFifth District

o County-opposed AB 194 {Campos) - related to the Brown Act, wouldalEow members of the public to speak on the same public meeting itemmore than once and/or without prior notice. The Executive Office of theBoard and County Counsel note that while the latest amendments removethe County's original concerns, the new provisions would allow for unduedisruptions at public meetings. Therefore, unless otherwise instructedby the Board, the Sacramento Advocates will oppose AB 194 unlessamended to remove provisions that would create undue disruptionsat pubic meetings.

Status of Legislation of County Interest.

o AB 2389 (Fox) - related to the temporary modification of the State'scapital investment incentive programs and tax credits for qualified taxpayers, was signed by the Governor on July 10, 2014.

o AB 2419 (Garcia) - related to agency shop fee agreements in the Countyand City of Los Angeles, was vetoed by the Governor on Jufy '! 8, 2014.


Please Conserve Paper This Document and Copies are Two-SidedInfra-County Correspondence Sent Elecfronically Only

Each SupervisorJuly 22, 2014Page 2

Change in Position on County-Advocacy Legislation

County-opposed AB 194 (Campos), which as amended on July 1, 2014, would forbidthe legislative body of a local agency at their public meetings from prohibiting or limitingcomment by a member of the public wishing to speak before the legislative body'sconsideration of an item, as well as during consideration, including comment by thosethat fail to provide advance notice of comment.

The Executive Office of the Board and County Counsel note that while the latestamendments to this bill remove the County's original concerns; the new provisions, asbroadly written, would allow members of the public to speak on the same item morethan once and/or without timely notice, thereby allowing for undue disruptions at publicmeetings. The Executive Office of the Board and County Counsel report thatacceptable amendments would clarify that: 1) members of the public shall be providedthe opportunity to comment on an item on the agenda during the legislative body'sconsideration of the item; and 2) members of the public should provide notice of theirdesire to comment any time prior to the legislative body's consideration of the item.Therefore, unless otherwise instructed by the Board, the Sacramento advocateswill oppose AB 194 unless amended to remove provisions that would createundue disruptions at public meetings.


AB 2389 (Fox), which as amended on July 2, 2014, would: 1) temporarily modify theState's current capital investment incentive programs, which local governments areauthorized #o establish; and 2} allow a tax credit to qualified taxpayers based on theamount of qualified wages paid to qualified full-time employees, among otherprovisions, was signed by the Governor on July 10, 2014, and it is Chapter 116,Statutes of 2014. As an urgency measure, AB 2389 takes effect immediately.

AB 2419 {Garcia), which as amended on March 12, 2014, would authorize the inclusionof management employees in agency shop arrangements in the County of Los Angelesand the City of Los Angeles, was vetoed by the Governor an July 18, 2014. In his vetomessage, the Governor noted that granting agency shop arrangements to managersgoes against sound labor-management relations that should require a clear separationbe#ween managers and rank and file employees.


VV~F:RAMR:PC:Im

c: All Department HeadsLegislative Strategist

NlSacramento Updates 2074/sacto 07221a

WILLIAhA T FUJIOKAChief Executive O~cer

County of Los AngelesCHIEF EXECUTtV~ t}FFICE

Kenneth Hahn Hail of Administration500 West Temple Sbeei, Room T'i3, Los Angeles, Calltornia 9Q012

{213) 9741101http:Jiceo.lacounty.gov

August 9 8, 2014

"~"~ Supervisor Don Knabe, ChairmanSupervisor Gloria MolinaSupervisor Mark Ridley-ThomasSupervisor Zev YaroslayskySupervisor Michael D. An#onovicE~


SACRAMENTO UPQATE

Executive Summary

This memorandum contains a report an the fallowing:

Change in Position on County-Advocacy Legisla#ion

Boats of SupervisorsGLORIA MOLINAFirst District

MARK RIDLEY i'HOMASSecond Olstrict

ZEV YARQSLAVSKYThird District

ppN KNABEFourth DistrictMICHAEL D. AIY30NOVICHFifth District

Countyoppose-unless-amended AB 994 {Campos) - related to the BrawnAct would forbid the legislative body of a local agency at their public meefingsfrom prohibiting or limiting comment by a member of the public wishing tospeak before the iegislat~ve body's consideration of an item, as wel! as duringconsideration, including comment by those that fail to provide advance noticeof comment. The Executive Offiice of tie Board and County Counsel notethat AB 'E 94 would allow members of the public to speak on the same itemmare than once and/ar without timely notice, thereby allowing far unduedisruptions at public meetings. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by theBoard, consistent with existing policies to oppose: 1 } any abridgement orelimination of the Board of Supervisors' powers and duties unless the changepromotes a higher priority of the Board; and 2) legislation that imposesunreasonable burciens or creates unfunded mandates to provide access torecords, information managed and maintained by County ag~nci~s, theSacramento advocates will oppose AB 194.

`7a Enrich Lives Through Effective RRd Caring Service"

Please Conserve Paper - Thls ~xument and Copies are Two-SfdedIntro-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only

Each SupervisorAugust 18, 2014Page 2


County-supported SB 912 (Mitchell} related to food and beverage optionsin vending machines operated and maintained an State property, passed theAssembly Floor on August 18, 2014, and now proceeds to the Governor.


SB 718 {Roth] related to financial incentives provided under a localgovernment's capital investment incentive program and aerospace tax creditsto qualified taxpayers, was signed by the Governer on August 15, 2014.

Report on the Joint legislative Audit Committee related to the approval of arequest by Assembly Member Bradford fora Sfat~ audit of the CoastalImprovement Fund.

Change in Position on County-Advocacy Legis[ation

County-appose-unless-amended AB 194 (Campos}, which as amended on July 1,2x1'4, would amend the Brown Act to forbid the IegisEative body of a local agency a#their public meetings from prohibiting or limiting comment by a member of fhe publicwishing to speak befflre the legislative body's consideration of an item, as well as duringconsideration, including comment by those that fail to provide advance na#ice ofcomment.

The Executive Office of the Board and County Counsel note that, as amended,AB 194 would allow members of the public to speak an the same item more than onceand/or without timely notice, thereby allowing for undue disruptions at publicmeetings. The County proposed amendments, which would have clarified that:1) members of the public shall be provided the opportunity to comment on an item onthe agenda during the legislative body's consideration of the item; and 2) members ofthe public should provide. notice of their desire to comment any time. prior to thelegisla#ive body's consideration of the item; however, these amendments were not takenby the author. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Board, consistent withexisting policies to appose: 1 } any abridgement or elimination. of the Board ofSupervisors' powers and duties unless the change promotes a higher priority of the

W/Sacramento lJpdates 2014lsatto 085854 2

Each SupervisorAugust 18, 204Page 3

Board; and 2) legislation that imposes unreasonable burdens or creates unfundedmandates to provide access to records, information manager! and maintained byCoun#y agencies, the Sacramento advocates wilt oppose A8 794.

This measure is currently on the Senate Floor.


County-supported SB 9'!2 (Mitchell), which as amended on April 21, 20'[4, wouldmake permanent pravisians in current State law which require vending machineoperaEors to provide faad and beverage options that meet accepfed nutritionalguidelines in vending machines operated and maintained on State property, passed theAssembly Floor by a vote of ~4 to 11 on August 18, 2014. This measure naw proceedsto the Governor.


SB 7'I'8 (Roth}, which as amended. on August 7, 2014, would expand eligibility for~naneial incentives provided under a loco{ government's capital investment incentiveprogram, and aerospace tax credits to qualified taxpayers, was signed by the Governoron August 15, 2014, and it is Chapter 189, Statutes of 2014. ~B 718 is an urgencymeasure and becomes efFective immediately.

According to the author of SB 718, this measure's focus on aerospace is an opportunityto position the State, once again, as a nationaE leader in supporting the aerospaceindustry by growing the industry by approximately 1,100 direct jobs and 5, 00 indirect orinduced jobs. This measure is simElar to AB 2389 (Chapfer 116, Statutes of 2014}which temporarily modifies the State's capifal investment incentive program to ~ravidetax incentives and credits for contractflrs (whether they are subcontractors or primecontractors} of the United States Air Farce that have been awarded a contract tomanufacture property for use in, or as component of, a new advanced strategic aircraft,and is intended to ensure competitive neutrality between competing bidders for thisproject.

Joint Legisla~ive Audit Committee and the County-Administered Coastalimprovement Fund

On August 14, 2014, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved, on consent, arequest by Assembly Member Steven Bradford to audit the Coastal Improvement Fund(CIF} due to allegations brought fonrvard by members of the public that the CIF wasbeing mismanaged and that insufficient funds were being contri

Documents

Brown Act Petition: Californians Aware v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors