Senate Approves Overhaul of State Open Meetings Act

A bill aimed at increasing the public’s right to know what their city councils, school boards and county supervisors are up to was narrowly passed by the Senate and sent to the Assembly on Thursday.

The bill, opposed by a variety of cities, water agencies, school districts and the Wilson Administration’s Department of Finance, won approval on a 22-7 vote, one more than the simple majority required. Its fate in the Assembly is uncertain.

Carried by Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), the legislation would overhaul the state’s 39-year-old Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires that meetings of local governing agencies be held in public and that their actions be taken in public view.

However, the Brown Act contains loopholes that critics maintain has enabled local governing boards, commissions and other entities to meet behind closed doors on issues affecting public policy and the expenditure of taxpayers’ money.

Opponents of the Kopp bill argued that certain issues, such as potential lawsuits, must be discussed at closed meetings to avoid revealing strategies that, if disclosed publicly, could cost taxpayers huge sums.

But Kopp, a former San Francisco supervisor, who steered the bill to the full Senate over major opposition of local government interests, argued that the rights of California citizens to see and hear what their government is doing has been steadily eroded at a time when the public’s confidence in government institutions is in deep trouble.

Neither the Brown Act nor Kopp’s bill applies to the state Legislature, but Kopp maintained that other open government laws apply to the Senate and Assembly.

Among other things, the 35-page bill would require that agendas of local government advisory agencies be posted and agenda issues for newly restricted closed sessions of local officials be announced to the public. Also, secret ballot votes would be prohibited.

The bill would also seek to restrict local governing boards from meeting outside their jurisdictions. Critics maintain that local officials can attend conferences at remote sites where they may be subject to lobbying by special interests without the knowledge of constituents.