DLANC: June Executive Committee Meeting
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Last night saw meetings of both DLANC's Executive Committee and its Budget & Finance Committee. I was there for the Exec. meeting as an observer (actually I just happened to get there early for Budget & Finance), and then was a new committee member for the second meeting.
I'll write about Budget & Finance later, but first let's get into the Executive Committee meeting. There's fun a-brewing these days, as was sort of portended in the special election results post. More about accusations of Brown Act violations, Robert's Rules, and conflicts of interest after the jump.
Brady, Susan and Ed were present to begin the meeting. Kai arrived later, and Ken was absent.
The Complaint
The main business of the evening was starting to process to handle a complaint of a Brown Act violation initiated by recently deposed Board member John Sellars. I haven't seen the actual complaint, so I'm only repeating what was presented at the meeting, but basically the complaint alleges two things:
- That the May 3rd Executive Committee meeting was noticed as a special meeting, even though it was held at the normal time.
- and that the agenda for this meeting only noticed that items would be put on the Board agenda, but did not give notice that specific items would be put on that agenda (particularly, I'm sure, referring to the Exec. committee putting the item of his removal on the May 10th Board Meeting agenda).
The Brown Act
The intent of the Brown Act is to ensure that meetings are conducted in an open fashion. It requires that meetings be noticed 72-hours in advance for a regular meeting, and 24-hours in advance for "special" meetings. The definition of what makes a meeting special is not spelled out in the Act, and it seems to have been interpreted loosely.
Special Meetings
I have seen no language to suggest that it is illegal for a body to call a special meeting that occurs at the time and place custom would dictate a normal meeting would have occured. I've complained about City Council calling special meetings at the last second before, but not because I think they've violated the law.
What Makes an Action?
The second question is interesting, because I think it gets into the definition of what actually constitutes an action. In other words, if the Executive Committee puts something on the Board agenda, but does not vote on it, is that an action? I'll quote here from a 2003 Brown Act reference published by the California Attorney General's Office (2-Part PDF: Intro and Body).
The agenda requirement does not apply when certain unnoticed topics are discussed at a noticed meeting. ... In addition, any member of the body or the body as a whole, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 03:00AM – #1
A vote for reconsideration of the main motion can not be made after the main motion has been enacted
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 03:03AM – #2
By the way I have the book you need.
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 03:19AM – #3
The motion to rescind can not be made in this instance either, due to the fact that John selers awas removed and an election was held.
The only thing we can do is call for accountability of the executive committee and request they resign , if in fact they violated the rights of the person who is challenging the executive committee and the Board of Directors. I would hold the executive commitee responsible and movc that they be removed form thier positions , since they made the recommendation to remove sellers and and vote on a new executive committee.
e; on June 09, 2005, at 07:35AM – #4
I agree with your interpretations of both the motion to Reconsider and the motion to Rescind.
A decision on whether or not procedure was correctly followed in removal will come in due time. I don't think it constructive to call for anything at the present time. If things were handled improperly, then sure, there should be accountability. But there should be no rush to sentence before the trial's even started. -e;
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 11:23AM – #5
The issue of the may 10th meeting is cut and dry. If they voted on an item which was not on teh agenda , then the board is in violation of the brown act. Alll items must be on the agenda and only items on the agenda can be voted on. PEriod. Unless they chose to supsend th eruls , which in that case they must have a good excuse to have done so.
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 11:29AM – #6
Eric Richardson for president of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.
e; on June 09, 2005, at 01:19PM – #7
The complaint wasn't filed about the May 10th meeting, only the Executive Committee meeting on the 3rd. Where things get interesting is when you begin to ask what actually would happen if the May 3rd meeting was invalidated. There is nothing in the bylaws to say that the Executive Committee must set the agenda for the Board meetings, so the question has to be asked: would invalidation actually affect the May 10th meeting in any way?
Just for posterity, here is the relevant item from the May 10th agenda:
3. Declaring resident citywide seat vacant and setting date for special election.
So the item clearly was on the agenda for the 10th. -e;
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 02:11PM – #8
Ok ., messed up , the 3rd executive committee meeting , if if was not noticed properly , did not occurr and any action taking place there is not valid.
The only way to get DLANC out of this mess is to invalidate the executive committee meeting and the board meeting if they were not noticed in a timely manner. The action was already acted uy acted upon.
Here is the description of the job of the Secretary of the neighborhood council: "Secretary. The Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings, correspondence, and documents; at the direction of the President, prepare and post agendas of meetings; keep minutes of all Board, Board Committee, and Member meetings; keep a record of all persons wishing copies of agendas and minutes and supply such persons with copies of agendas and minutes."
This has been a point of contention since the inception of the neighborhood council: Who makes the agenda for the governiong board?
It is the duty of the Preseident to direct the creation of the Agenda , but it has to be debated by the executive committee, that is how it has beeen doen although it is not in the by-laws, thus unofficially it is the executive committee which recommends the minutes to the preseindet , who then instructs the secretary to create the agenda.
As far as I am concerned unless the neighborhood council , they can find the meetings out of order , they can no thorugh any dlanc process , correct what they did , if they indeed do wrong, it will be up to the Department of Neighborhood Empoowerment and the Ciyt Attrorney.
e; on June 09, 2005, at 04:17PM – #9
I see where you're going with that, Don, but I think one important question needs to be answered before any of that matters:
As I discussed in the original post, the reading I gave from the California Attorney General's office would seem to say that it is not. If it is not, you are left with discussion of Brown Act restrictions on when meetings may be "special". As I again said above, I see the definition in the Brown Act to be very flexible.
But again, I'm not a lawyer and this will run its course. I'm willing to be enlightened. -e;
DOn Garza on June 09, 2005, at 05:18PM – #10
If it is an emergency and can not wait to be noitced by the brown act sure , but is removal of John Sellars an emergency that prevented any further actions from taking place . In my opinin , no , thus DLANC is going to have a hard time proving that without the expedient removal , DLANC business would suffer. REmoval and election were enacted after the main motion was adopted. What I am referring to , is if the notice wnet out under 24 hours , then you can calim the meetings were not valid.
Besides that. You can not rescind the new election.
e; on June 09, 2005, at 06:36PM – #11
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming less than 24 hour notice for the May 3rd meeting. My inbox shows that I got the notice at 3pm on May 2nd. For a 6:30pm meeting, that's 27.5 hours. -e;
Don Garza on June 09, 2005, at 07:06PM – #12
The executive committte meeting on the 3rd was valid.
So now we are stuck with who put the removal of JOhn Sellars on the MAy 1oth Board meeting agenda and if it was on the agenda for the may 10th board meeting , then in my opinion the main motion is valid and the resulting removal of JOhn Sellars and the election of russel brown is valid.
I also sincerley believe that the executive committee , if they or somoene on the executive committe made the decision to put this on the may 10th board meeting needs to be held accountable for said actions, they are not above the law and ignorance in this case is no excuse. I feel removal from thier post on the executive committee is the best we can do , for the emotional distress caused to Russsel Brown and JOhn Sellars , if in fact the City Attorney Finds DLANC was wrong in removing John Sellers.
Did the executive committee mean that the removal of sellars be put on the may 10th agenda and was this discussed. If in fact it was discussed and was to be a part of "future agenda items" then , yes it is a valid vote made by the executive committee.
In my non lawyer opinion.
DOn Garza on June 11, 2005, at 09:32PM – #13
From the Department of NEighborhood Website: Date: May 3, 2004 To: Neighborhood Council Leaders From: Greg Nelson, General Manager, Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment Subject: LOBBYISTS CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM SERVING ON NC BOARDS. ONLINE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE BY CITY CLERK. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES. FUNDING PROGRAM REPORT RELEASED. $100,000 STREET SERVICES PROGRAM
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on June 12, 2005, at 09:27AM – #14
In this case, since DLANC isn't able to rule on an alleged Brown Act violation, all the Executive Committee will be doing at the grievance hearing is listening and then delivering an opinion from the City Attorney's office. Since they aren't making any sort of judgement, there can't be a conflict of interest.
Were this a complaint on which the grievance committee could act, then yes, it would seem there would be a conflict. -e;
Donley F on March 10, 2007, at 12:11PM – #15
How can I get an item on the agenda of the Los Angeles City Council for consideration?