Times Sues County Over Meetings

The Los Angeles Times filed a lawsuit Friday against the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, alleging its members violated state law by holding private meetings to discuss county business.

The complaint claims that in a series of in-person and telephonic meetings, supervisors planned ways to defeat a proposed ballot initiative that would increase wages for the county’s home health-care aides.

The lawsuit also contends that the supervisors’ health deputies act as a “shadow board” by holding private meetings about matters before the board votes on them, and that supervisors have private, individual discussions with the county administrator every Monday about items on the board’s Tuesday agenda.

County Counsel Lloyd Pellman, after hearing about the lawsuit, denied that the board violated open meeting laws.

“I’m not aware of any violations of the Brown Act,” Pellman said. “I cannot imagine any organization of any size operating in a manner where its chief appointed individual--as the chief administrative officer is for the county of Los Angeles--would be restrained from meeting with his bosses on a basis where the public had to be able to be in attendance.”

The Times reported this month that the supervisors tried to thwart the health-care initiative in closed meetings. The content of those meetings surfaced after the county declined the newspaper’s public records request but accidentally enclosed the documents sought along with the denial letter.

Richard McKee, president of the California First Amendment Coalition, is a co-plaintiff in The Times lawsuit.

“The Times is bringing this suit on behalf of the public, to enforce a law that keeps the government running in the open,” said Susan Seager, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

“It’s usually really hard to enforce the Brown Act, because usually when governments talk in secret, it stays secret. Because of their mistake, we were able to get a window into their closed sessions,” Seager said.

The lawsuit alleges that in private meetings from Dec. 18 through Jan. 8, the board voted to kill the health-care initiative using a tactic that is illegal under the state elections code, rescinded that decision after realizing it would not hold up in court, and discussed whether the meetings had violated the Brown Act.

All of the meetings, including the ones discussing the legality of the board’s actions, violated the Brown Act because the public was neither notified nor allowed to attend, the complaint alleges.

The board will hold a public hearing Tuesday to air complaints that the county routinely violates open government laws. All but one supervisor has already proposed changes or asked for reports on alleged violations.

“I think ... the Board of Supervisors are all committed to conducting themselves individually and collectively in an ethical way that conforms to the law, mindful of the interests of the taxpayers that they serve,” Pellman said.

Because of Pellman’s involvement in the meetings in question, Supervisors Gloria Molina and Don Knabe have recommended that the county hire a lawyer to review their suggestions for reform.

Signatures are being collected for the initiative, which would appear on the November ballot.