Objection to Closed City Council Sessions

Open Letter to Redondo Beach City Council:

As Redondo Beach council members should well know, the law demands that they make their decisions in public, before the people and on the public record. Negotiating, compromising and bargaining with respect to public matters while behind closed doors and out of the public’s scrutiny is simply prohibited by the law of California and makes each council member who participates criminally liable.

The law states simply and directly:

“All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency (i.e. city council) shall be open and public.”

Pursuant to this open-meetings law, a member of the public can put the council on notice of its violation and demand that the city council correct its violation by opening its meetings to the public.

The Redondo Beach City Council incorrectly and frequently violates this law by arguing that it is entitled to an exemption from the open and public meeting requirement when the discussion involves real estate negotiations or pending litigation. As the case law and statutory language indicate, however, the basic policy--that of ensuring that council meetings are public and open--is fundamental to democratic government and exceptions to that rule are strictly construed.

Too often the Redondo Beach City Council invokes these legal loopholes in order to escape the public’s scrutiny of their decision making. By attempting to justify their secret handling of the public’s business by arguing the applicability of these real estate negotiations are pending litigation exemptions, they demonstrate their lack of political courage and unwillingness to be held accountable for their decisions. These exemptions to the open meeting requirement are generally inapplicable because the decision to lease or to initiate litigation is rarely made publicly in advance of the closed meeting. Moreover, the real estate negotiations exemption is warranted (in the words of the law) only “to give instructions to its negotiation regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange or lease.” The exemption for pending litigation should be exercised only (also in the words of the law) “. . . when discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.”

To rescue themselves from the shame and pain of possible criminal liability, I encourage the R.B. City Council to reconsider their regular retirement to the sanctuary of closed session to decide matters of a public nature. Do not hide from the scrutiny of the public you swear to serve.

ROBERT E. LUTZ

Redondo Beach