State Allows Cities To Become Less Transparent

Cities now have the option of becoming a lot more secretive—if they choose.

Last month, the state legislature suspended the Brown Act mandate that local jurisdictions—cities, counties, school districts, water districts and special districts—post meeting agendas for the public. The suspension also allows local jurisdictions to forgo reporting to the public about actions taken during closed-session meetings.

How many California municipalities will choose to abandon the transparency mandates is unknown.

The League of California Cities is expected to release an official statement on the issue next week, but the organization’s Communications Director Eva Spiegel said for now the suggestion to cities is  to stick with the status quo.

“The League has been very involved with the Brown Act,” she said. “We have always encouraged transparency.”

How the state came to the decision of suspending the Brown Act mandates boiled down to one thing: money. In California, mandates placed on local jurisdictions by Sacramento must be funded by the state. In the case of the Brown Act mandates, the state was subsidizing nearly $100 million a year by some estimates.

So, in an effort to cut expenditures, the state decided to suspend the mandates.

But according to watchdog Californians Aware, local jurisdictions learned how to milk the system.

They “could get a windfall of cash for doing something they had always done: preparing and posting meeting agendas for their governing and other bodies as mandated by Brown Act amendments passed in 1986—but as, in fact, routinely done anyway since time immemorial to satisfy practical and political expectations,” the nonprofit reported Friday.

The suspension could last through 2015, so it appears the public will need to demand transparency from its representatives if it wants to stay informed.

The Brown Act has been considered the fundamental basis for ensuring Gilroy governmental proceedings, meetings and decisions are conducted in public, according to Joe Kline, public information officer for the City of Gilroy.

In a , Kline writes that reporting on local issues "typically exceeded the minimum requirements set forth by the Brown Act."

The City of Gilroy takes pride in its level of government transparency. Council members passed an Open Government Ordinance in 2008 and established an Open Government Commission, comprised of three council members, "to bolster the Brown Act and set forth Gilroy’s independent commitment to transparency," Kline wrote. 

However, in a , the City of Gilroy did not fare well. 

In the small poll with only 20 votes, 50 percent of voters said Gilroy's government isn't even close to transparent. Forty percent of voters said Gilroy's government is transparent, while 10 percent said it is somewhat. 

How would your view of the City of Gilroy change if council members decided to abandon the transparency mandates?

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Get our daily newsletter| Blog for us