ETA News Tracker

According to Calaware, the City of Encinitas has the distinction of being the first municipality to reject flatly a proposed sunshine ordinance. Teresa Barth's reaction is printed in the June 20, 2009 UT:

Open-government law pushed for Encinitas

Some cities in California have enacted open-government policies, often referred to as sunshine ordinances, which go beyond the minimum requirements of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

A clearly established policy of open meetings, easy access to public records and accountability will increase the public's trust and confidence in government.

At the June 10 Encinitas City Council meeting, I proposed a citizen task force to work with staff to craft a sunshine ordinance. My colleagues, while admitting to past problems, said such an ordinance was not necessary.

I disagree. Without a written policy, it is too easy to ignore and abuse state open government laws. We must send a clear message to the public that Encinitas values open and transparent government. Further, we must hold ourselves and the staff accountable to these goals.

The citizens of Encinitas deserve nothing less.

TERESA BARTH
Council Member
City of Encinitas

Context: The Encinitas City Council signed a four year contract with city unions and gave staff a fifteen percent raise over that period.

NCT EDITORIAL: Vista stance on contracts one to follow
NCT VIEW: One-year union pacts allow better flexibility

As Vista hammers out the details of a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, the city is aggressively seeking from its three labor unions one-year agreements ---- a saner approach than the traditional multiyear agreements that lock in future payroll increases with no sense of what additional money might exist to pay for them...

Vista should stick to its pursuit of one-year contracts now and in the future. Doing so eliminates one of the many flaws in multiyear agreements: Guaranteeing annual pay raises far in advance of knowing what tax revenues will look like...

Vista is already a leader in fiscal responsibility; it is one of two cities in the county that requires employees to pay their full share of contributions to the state retirement program.

Note: According to City staff, the taxpayers pay a substantial portion of "staff's" contribution to the pension fund.

Must Read: Encinitas City Staff is Wiser than Council.

From Calaware's website:

Why State Sunshine Laws Are Only the Beginning
Anyone with experience as a local government watchdog knows that the laws supporting access to public meetings and government records don't accommodate the needs of citizens attempting to be informed participants in their government.

The Brown Act and the California Public Records Act simply don't always guarantee the quality, ease or completeness of informed participation in local government that citizens might desire.

Here are some of Calaware's suggestions for things not already required by State law:
* Create a permanent oversight commission of citizens to assure that the sunshine law works
* Extend open meeting requirements to more situations
* Require earlier or better access to agenda-related information
* Reduce the frequency of closed sessions
* Require more disclosure about closed session actions
* Identify high-interest categories of records or information to be disclosed readily
* Set an expedited schedule for producing records
* Provide for free or low-cost access to records
* Make computer-stored information more accessible
* Make explanations more specific when access is denied
* Provide a ready response to simple queries and requests
* Champion the free expression rights of public employees and elected officials

On June 10th the council considered drafting a sunshine ordinance. Here is what CFAC writes about sunshine ordinances in California:

Although state law--mainly in the form of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act--governs access rights at the local level, cities and counties are free to enact ordinances that provide GREATER RIGHTS OF ACCESS than state law. These local laws providing extra rights are often referred to as "Sunshine" laws.

Teresa Barth provided the lone vote for moving forward with a sunshine ordinance.

Houlihan voted against an ordinance. It was unclear why. Some observers didn't even realize she had voted against it.

Jerome Stocks apparently voted against the ordinance because the city was already being open and transparent. He used the staff's report as evidence that staff has been doing a great job and that the city is very open. Staff and Stocks are correct about the city being responsible for following the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act.

Stocks did not discuss the Open Government practices and provisions that are beyond these two state laws. In some cases, these provisions are included in the sunshine ordinances of other cities. The practice at Encinitas City Hall does not exceed many of the key extensions found in the sunshine ordinances of other cities.

City staff disclosed that they had left these provisions out of the staff report, but none of the council members inquired into the missing information.

Stocks also failed to address years of objections from the public and that the city often does only the minimum, uses gray areas in the law to restrict public access, and frequently violates the CPRA and Brown Act. Danny Dalager even admitted to violating the Brown Act during the discussion.

Danny has implied several times, on record, that open government laws are a burden (without ever qualifying it as a necessary/useful burden). This week he told a story about how a resident had conduced a records request for an email that contained a citizen's phone number.

Danny says the requester used the phone number to harass the citizen who sent the email to the city. His conclusion wasn't clear to me, but I think that is his justification for deleting his public record emails. It wasn't clear if he was also admitting to violating the California Public Records Act. He was certainly admitting to violating the law's intent.

Unfortunately, Danny did not discuss why his concern couldn't have been addressed during the drafting of a sunshine ordinance. Indeed, without taking action the story could repeat.

No one brought up that there is no satisfactory means for the public to have their concerns regarding violations of open government laws resolved, short of suing the city. This is the first thing I would ask to have included in a sunshine ordinance.

Recommendation
The citizenry will either have to: elect a council majority interested in ensuring that the fundamental components of democracy are secured, or adopt a sunshine ordinance via an initiative.

See Also: 50% Chance of Sunshine

UT Governor Backs Down
"So if both parties don't like to borrow from local government, of course we will not borrow from local government. That's clear.”

The last item on Wednesday night's agenda is a sunshine ordinance. This is a great opportunity for the City and is a nice turn of events. Many of us have been working years to have this considered.

Here is what CFAC writes about sunshine ordinances in California:

Although state law--mainly in the form of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act--governs access rights at the local level, cities and counties are free to enact ordinances that provide GREATER RIGHTS OF ACCESS than state law. These local laws providing extra rights are often referred to as "Sunshine" laws.

Related documents:
City Staff Report
Pages Left Out of the Staff Report
Calaware Sunshine Ord. Links
Sunshine Laws Across the USA