Council should revisit results from retreat

When public bodies meet to conduct the public’s business, they are

supposed to abide by a set of state regulations called the Ralph M.

Brown Act, or the “government in the sunshine” laws.

These laws require advanced notice of meetings, public notice of

what will be discussed and steps to ensure the ability of the public

to make its feelings known on the issues.

Unfortunately, sometimes public officials stray from these rules,

even without intending to do the public wrong.

That’s what appears to have happened on Feb. 22, when the City

Council met outside its regular venue to discuss how to handle the

increasing public input at its regular meetings.

City officials want a bit more control of public speakers so the

meetings don’t get bogged down in endless commentary, and the

public’s business can get done in an efficient manner.

Like many public agencies, the council holds an annual “retreat,”

at which its members can discuss items of business that would be out

of place in the course of a regular council meeting.

The retreat format -- outside of their normal meeting-place --

allows for more informality and a more free-wheeling discussion among

the council members, without the distraction of public comment on the

issues.

This type of meeting only happens once a year, and is seen as

necessary to allow the council to formulate broad policies.

At the Feb. 22 meeting, the council agreed -- without a formal

vote -- to enforce existing rules on speaking times and take other

steps to control the public’s input.

These measures in themselves seem reasonable and not out of

keeping with how other city council’s conduct their public hearings.

Unfortunately, the confluence of a discussion of public input

policies conducted at a meeting without public input has raised the

hackles of our community watchdogs -- including the local chapter of

the League of Women Voters.

Even the venerable Terry Francke, of Californians Aware, a

statewide watchdog group, has expressed alarm at the way the meeting

was conducted and the decisions that were reached.

Those decisions, Francke says, could be subject to legal challenge

because of the irregularities at that meeting.

It would be most unfortunate if the very measures taken to ensure

efficient public input could make future decisions subject to legal

challenges.

The league is asking the council to take these items up at a

formal, public meeting, and we agree that’s exactly what it should

do.