Ventura activist lodges Brown Act complaint over handling of his comments on water
By Daniel Cormode
Editor’s note: This Ventura activist filed a complaint with Ventura, because comments he made in an open meeting are not being forwarded to the agency involved (city Water Commission), which he believes circumvents the intent of the Brown Act on public information transparency.
Update 9-29-15- Mr. Cormode has since sent this to the District attorney: Brown Act Violation Complaint DA 2015 09 29
9-24-15
SubJ: Violation of Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies
.
Ref: (a) Sylvia Lopez e-mail Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:02 PM, Re: Overestimation of Ventura River/Foster Park Wellfield Water Supply
(b) Daniel Cormode e-mail Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:46:29 AM, RE: Overestimation of Ventura River/Foster Park Wellfield Water Supply
(c) Daniel Cormode Memorandum dated 21 September 2015 RE: Overestimation of Ventura River/Foster Park Wellfield Water Supply
.
1. Reference (a) was an e-mail from City Staff notifying me that public comments to matters under consideration by the City of San Buenaventura Water Commission at its 22 Sep 2015 Meeting would not be forwarded to the City of San Buenaventura Water Commission but only be placed in an official case file.
.
2. Reference (b) was an e-mail from Daniel Cormode critical of policies, procedures, programs and services of Ventura Water.
.
3. Reference (c) was an attachment to reference (b) containing detailed comments critical of policies, procedures, programs and services of Ventura Water.
.
4. Water Commission Rules of Procedure appear to be in violation of provisions of the Brown Act. Failure to forward references (b) and (c) to the City of San Buenaventura Water Commission is a violation of the Brown Act as it denies by constitutional right to comment on subjects relating to the business of the Water Commission. The Act provides that the legislative body shall not prohibit a member of the public from criticizing the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. (§54954.3(c).) Public meetings of governmental bodies have been found to be limited public fora. As such, members of the public have broad constitutional rights to comment on any subject relating to the business of the governmental body. Any attempt to restrict the content of such speech must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest. Specifically, the courts found that policies that prohibited members of the public from criticizing school district employees were unconstitutional. (Leventhal v. Vista Unified School Dist. (1997) 973 F.Supp. 951; Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. (1996) 936 F.Supp. 719.) These decisions found that prohibiting critical comments was a form of viewpoint discrimination, and that such a prohibition promoted discussion artificially geared toward praising (and maintaining) the status quo, thereby foreclosing meaningful public dialogue.1
.
5. Furthermore, City Staff has violated provisions of the Brown Act by failing to distribute writings, references (b) and (c) to members of the Water Commission and the public. Agendas or any other writings, except for records exempt from disclosure under section 6254 of the Public Records Act, distributed to all or a majority of the members of a legislative body for discussion or consideration at a public meeting are disclosable to the public upon request, and shall be made available without delay to members of the public in accordance with the provisions of section 54957.5. If materials are provided prior to a meeting, the materials should, upon request and without delay, be made available to the public upon request at the time of distribution to the body. (§ 54957.5(a).) If the materials are distributed to the members of the body by the agency at the meeting, the materials should be available to the public at that time as well. Materials provided at the meeting by a person, who is not a member of the body or employee of the local agency, must be made available by the body to the public at the conclusion of the meeting. (§ 54957.5(b).) 2
.
6. It is requested that I be advised in writing as to what action or actions will be taken to resolve the above issues by 24 Oct 2015.
1 The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, California Attorney General’s Office, 2003
2 The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, California Attorney General’s Office, 2003
Copy of Mr. Cormode’s complaint and related correspondence:
Brown Act Violation Complaint 2015 09 24
Previous article:
Ventura resident warns of water supply threats, opportunities
From: Daniel Cormode Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:01 PM To: Undisclosed Recipients Cc: [email protected] Subject: Ventura River/Foster Park Wellfield Water Supply All, Ventura Water continued to support the Ventura River/Foster Park Wellfield as a viable normal source of supply for 4,200-6,700 acre-feet of water for the City of Ventura during the City of San […]
_______________________________________________
Daniel Cormode is a Ventura resident
