D.A. Says Oxnard Now Abiding by Open-Meetings Law

Oxnard officials no longer appear to be violating the state’s open-meetings law, Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury said Thursday.

Bradbury, who two years ago called on Oxnard residents to vote the City Council out of office for holding what he called illegal secret meetings, said Thursday he has received no complaints about the city for at least a year.

“I certainly hope they’ve finally gotten the message,” Bradbury said.

The comments came as the district attorney announced his support for passage of a bill by Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) aimed at toughening the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires public agencies to hold open meetings.

Oxnard City Atty. Gary Gillig, who has denied that city officials violated the act, did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Councilman Michael Plisky said he agreed with Bradbury’s observation.

“In the past two years the council did an excellent job of behaving,” Plisky said, adding that he had complained to the district attorney about closed meetings in previous years. “I think he’s really whipped them into shape.”

Kopp’s proposed overhaul of the Brown Act would allow local prosecutors to file suit against local government agencies that violate the law. Under current law, only individuals can file such suits.

“It’s very difficult for the average person to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit,” Bradbury said, adding that such a provision would have enabled him to take Oxnard officials to court.

Appearing with Bradbury, Kopp said his bill also would:

* Prohibit secret ballots at closed sessions.

* Permit the public to make audio or video tapes of open government meetings.

* Prohibit city councils and other policy-making bodies from meeting outside their jurisdictions. The provision is aimed at curbing the practice of holding retreats at faraway places where typical residents cannot attend, he said.

* Tighten exceptions to the Brown Act that permit officials to discuss litigation and real estate acquisition in closed sessions. Under the proposed change, the litigation exception could be invoked only when there are reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit will be filed against the local government. In such cases, the potential claimant must be named on a public agenda. Similarly, in discussions of real estate the property would have to be identified.

* Extend the statute of limitations for violation of the act from the current 30 days to 90 days.

Both Kopp and Bradbury described the current law--named for a former Assembly speaker--as toothless. As evidence, they said no one has been convicted of violating the law in the 40 years since it was enacted.

Kopp said he expects a “fairly easy path to passage” of his legislation, which is supported by the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. A similar bill was approved by the Legislature last year but Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed it, saying it would cost too much. The state reimburses local governments for the cost of complying with the act.

Kopp said he hopes to overcome the governor’s opposition by showing that some local governments have inflated their demands for reimbursement.

Among Ventura County legislators, state Sen. Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara) supports the bill, Kopp said. Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria) voted for Kopp’s similar bill last year but has not taken a position on the current legislation.

Assemblywoman Paula Boland (R-Granada Hills) also has taken no position on the bill, but last year she voted against Kopp’s measure because of concerns about its costs, among other things, a spokesman said.

State Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) and Assemblyman Nao Takasugi (R-Oxnard) could not be reached for comment.