Public Access Laws Deemed Adequate

State laws and new local policies are sufficient to ensure access to county government, and no new reforms are needed, according to the law firm hired by the Board of Supervisors to review open government proposals.

J. Kenneth Brown was hired last month to analyze a proposed open government ordinance and to advise the board on some of its own suggestions for reform.

On Tuesday, in a six-page memorandum, Brown said he thought the board ought not to implement anything beyond what it voted to do last month and what is required by state law. Among the proposals he recommended against were moves to shorten the time limit for releasing short public records, to provide settlement agreements to the public as soon as they are reached and to give the public access to supporting documents.

“I do not recommend that the board adopt any other aspect of the Sunshine Act,” he said. Current state laws “provide sufficient guidance” for access, he added, pointing out that few local governments have passed their own ordinances.

If the board decides to make reforms, supervisors ought to do so through easily changed policies, rather than laws, Brown recommended.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and advocates of public access criticized Brown’s report, saying it was a shallow analysis.

“I don’t believe that the status quo is fine,” said Yaroslavsky, who proposed the majority of the reforms the board has implemented. “I’m just frustrated that after a month, this is where we are.”

The county’s policies on public access have been a subject of complaints by some advocates for many years. The current push for increased public participation began after the inadvertent disclosure of a secret board vote to kill a proposed ballot initiative. The issue became a lightning rod, giving various groups an audience to air their grievances about the county’s closed doors.

An analysis last month by The Times found that more than 90% of the supervisors’ official business was conducted without public comment.

Supervisors typically meet individually with the county administrative officer on Mondays to discuss the board’s Tuesday agenda. In addition, the supervisors’ aides meet in private before the board’s official sessions to resolve policy matters.

In the face of mounting public pressure, the board voted on April 2 to improve access to county government. The board voted to tape-record its private meetings, post more public documents relating to county business on the Internet, provide a better explanation of matters discussed behind closed doors and allow the public to view meetings of the supervisors’ deputies.

The board hired Brown to examine several additional proposals after advocates and some supervisors raised concerns about County Counsel Lloyd Pellman, who has advised against increased public access and also is at the center of the controversy over secret votes and meetings that have led to calls for reforms.

Brown’s firm was already representing the county in a lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Times that accuses the board of violating open meeting laws. Supervisors Gloria Molina and Don Knabe said they thought hiring Brown as a consultant on reforms would be efficient because he would be familiar with the issues.

Some advocates of public access complain that the dual role creates unsurmountable conflicts.

“It would seem to us that [to defend the lawsuit] they would need things to stay the same, and that’s what they recommend,” Karen Ocamb of the Los Angeles Press Club told the board Tuesday.

Her group asked, and was granted, two weeks in which to prepare a response to Brown’s report before the supervisors take further action.

Brown’s firm, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, does other defense work for the county. It has been paid more than $1.1 million by the county since the beginning of the fiscal year in July, according to county documents. Brown said his analysis so far will cost the taxpayers about $10,000 to $15,000. The county administrator estimates the total bill for Brown’s advice will be $25,000.

Brown denied any conflict of interest, insisting that reforms are not admissions of past guilt. He said he simply did not like the specific provisions of the Sunshine Act proposed by Ocamb and others.

Miguel Santana, a spokesman for Molina, said it is too soon to judge Brown’s work. Many on the board said Brown--and the county--are hamstrung by the pending lawsuit.

“We don’t think his job is over. At some point, we’re going to need some analysis of what we could do that’s better than what we have today,” Santana said.