Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business v. County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors
Before: Gilbert
Synopsis
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
[207]
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.; the Brown Act) is designed to encourage public participation in government.
1
To fulfill this purpose, it requires that public agencies conduct business and deliberate openly. Here we hold that the Brown Act does not require a county board of supervisors to allow members of the public to address it concerning whether an item should be placed on the agenda.
We also determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. We affirm.
FACTS
The Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business and the Center for Environmental Equality (collectively COLAB) are nonprofit corporations. COLAB filed a complaint against the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara (the Board) and Supervisors Gail Marshall, Susan Rose and Naomi Schwartz, alleging violations of the Brown Act. The allegations concern the timing of a recall election against Supervisor Marshall.
The Complaint
The complaint alleged: Supervisors Marshall, Rose and Schwartz opposed the recall. They believed that Marshall would have a better chance of success if the recall election was held during the general election in November of 2002, instead of holding a special election during the summer. Sometime in 2001 or early 2002, Marshall, Rose and Schwartz formed a “ ‘collective concurrence’ ” by means of an informal secret meeting to assure that the recall election would be held in November of 2002.
On June 7, 2002, Supervisor Joni Gray made a timely request that an item be placed on the agenda for the Board’s June 12, 2002, regular meeting. The item would be a discussion of the certification and timing of the recall election. Marshall, Rose and Schwartz blocked the item from being placed on the regular agenda.
At the June 12, 2002, meeting, Gray proposed that the certification and timing of the recall election be discussed as an ex-agenda item. Several members of the public filled out “speaker cards” expressing a desire to address the Board on the issue. Supervisor Marshall, as chair, refused to allow the public to speak. The Board as a whole discussed in open session
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)