Protection for the Public

California’s Brown Act requires city councils, school boards, county boards of supervisors, water districts and other agencies to meet in public. Secret meetings are permitted only on sensitive subjects like personnel matters and lawsuits.

SB 2173, sponsored by Sen. David Roberti (D-Los Angeles), further clarifies the limited circumstances under which a public board can use lawyer-client protections to close a meeting. The bill, scheduled today before the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization, deserves approval in order to protect the public debate.

Closing public meetings to discuss legal matters was a common excuse given before a 1984 law, shepherded through the California Legislature, by Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia). Under that law, boards and councils can go into executive session to plan legal action, contemplate the filing of a suit or discuss a significant risk of litigation.

A broad interpretation, by California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, however, could allow agencies to discuss in secret any legal advice, any legal question, any mere threat of court action--a common and crippling occurence in today’s overly litigious climate. Under that interpretation, any policy matter--particularly any controversial issue such as a rezoning change in which residents threatened to sue or any environmental decision that could prompt court action--could avoid public scrutiny.

SB 2173 would clarify the guidelines protecting the public’s right to information. The bill also would extend the protection of the Brown Act to cover task forces conducting official business--another guarantee that the public would know more, not less. Approval is in the public’s interest.