“Mr. Brown” Takes His Act to City Hall

RETHINKING LA - This past Tuesday, “Mr. Brown” headed over to LA’s City Hall in order to attend the City Council’s regularly scheduled public meeting. He never made it.

Mr. Brown knew that parking opportunities downtown were expensive and limited so he took the Metro, arriving at the Civic Center station and walking east, pausing to admire the impressive architecture of the Times building, the LAPD Headquarters, and the Caltrans building.

As Mr. Brown followed his map to 200 N. Spring Street, he turned north and stood across the street from City Hall, a building so awe inspiring, he found himself simply standing and looking up at the world’s tallest base isolated structure. This was were he committed his first mistake of the day.

Mr. Brown crossed the street, using a crosswalk decorated with the LA City Seal and a peace dove, and walked up the granite steps, through the huge arches and into the Romanesque forecourt.

He paused to read the inscription over the doorway, “Righteousness Exalteth a People,” and emboldened by the words of Solomon he continued walking toward the front door of LA’s City Hall.

Again he paused, this time to examine the bronze bas relief carvings that memorialize half a dozen key events in LA’s history, including one with Commodore Robert Field Stockton and Major John Charles Fremont saluting the flag in “American Occupation 1846.”

Mr. Brown opened the door and took a couple of steps, pausing to allow his eyes to adjust to the sudden shift from the sunlight to the dimly lit atrium. He was greeted by a man in uniform, complete with a badge and a gun, who stood in his way.

“You can’t come in here.” said the uniformed greeter.

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“You have to exit, go around the building, and enter through the back of the building. The front entrance is only for City of LA staff and officials.” said the doorman as if he was guarding LA’s most exclusive club.

“But I’m a member of the public here to attend a public meeting.” repeated Mr. Brown.

“Back up, go around the building, and use the back door.” repeated the officer from LA’s Office of Public Safety, this time a tad more gruffly than the first time.

Mr. Brown exited and circled the building, and entered through the back door where he was greeted by a full contingent of OPS officers who were operating screening equipment.

He placed his personal belongings on the conveyor belt and waited while a little old man was repeatedly sent through the screening machine, each time eliciting a beep that prompted the OPS officer to repeat the instruction “remove all metal objects.” The little old man would shift his cane from one hand to the other as he patted his pockets and searched for the offending security violation, coming up empty each time.

Eventually, the OPS officer and his partner noticed that the little old man was wearing suspenders, an oversight that prompted them to give him a lecture on the need to declare his suspenders in the future.

Mr. Brown was screened with no problems, and as he followed the little old man with the cane, another OPS officer bellowed “Come back here, I need to see your ID.”

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“I need to see your ID.” repeated the OPS officer from behind the counter.

“Am I being detained?” asked Mr. Brown.

“No, you just need to show me your ID so I can give you this sticker.” said the OPS officer who was responsible for a clipboard filled with names and a sheet of stickers.

“Then you don’t need my ID, I’m here to attend a public meeting.”

“Oh!” said the OPS officer, “You’re using the Brown Act. You need to tell me that you’re using the Brown Act.”

“Actually, there are no magic words or passwords or special phrases needed in order to attend a public meeting under the Brown Act,” explained Mr. Brown, “One does not need to know the specifics of the Brown Act in order to be covered by the Brown Act. I’m here to attend a public meeting, you know it is covered by the Brown Act, and it is your legal obligation and sworn duty to allow me to attend without demanding ID.”

“Why are you giving me a hard time?” the OPS officer said, apparently a rhetorical question that was certainly beneath her role as a Sergeant with LA’s Office of Public Safety.

“Actually, it is you who is giving a member of the public a hard time,’ responded Mr. Brown, “first by ‘demanding’ identification from a member of the public who is simply trying to attend a public meeting and then by requiring a ‘magic phrase’ in order to invoke the Brown Act. You’re not only giving me a hard time, you’re committing a misdemeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers.”

Mr. Brown took his sticker from Sgt. “M” and began to walk toward the elevators when he thought twice and decided to talk to a supervisor. He asked a different OPS officer (budget constraints be damned, there were six OPS officers in the lobby of City Hall) and a radio request went out for the Watch Commander.

The Lieutenant on duty sent over a Sergeant, a large man who would definitely benefit from a few days in charm school. His disdain for Mr. Brown was palpable and his interest in the Brown Act guarantees was minimal, if any existed at all.

“I’m sure that if we were doing something wrong, the City Attorney would tell us.” Sgt. “L” explained, turning as if his confidence in the status quo was sufficient to end the conversation.

“But your officers seem to think that a demand for ID is acceptable and it isn’t.” explained Mr. Brown. “Further, they seem to think that there is a Brown Act password that must be exercised in order to invoke the Brown Act. That’s also not true.

“I’ not sure of any of the details of the Brown Act,’ Sgt. “L” explained, casting doubts on the efficacy of OPS supervision, “But the City Attorney tells us what to do and we do it. I’m sure if the City Attorney has a policy, it’s a legal policy.”

Mr. Brown realized that conversation with Sgt. “L” was going nowhere so he asked if he could file a complaint. Sgt ”L” said he had to go to his car for the form, a trip that took 20 minutes, resulting in the return of an empty-handed Sgt “L” who explained that he would have to go to Headquarters for the form. (OPS HQ is across the street)

In light of the time it took Sgt. “L” to simply get to his car which was parked at the curb, Mr. Brown considered how long it would take Sgt. “L” to actually cross the street and chose to visit OPS HQ himself. He crossed the street, entered the underground mall and found the OPS HQ, just past the Togo’s and to the right.

The OPS Watch Commander listened attentively with just a hint of fatigue and acknowledged that the City Attorney had performed Brown Act training, that the OPS request for ID is just a request, that there is no “magic phrase” that invokes the Brown Act, and that the City Attorney had distributed training materials to the OPS officers.

Mr. Brown asked for a copy of the Brown Act training materials, a request that brought a look of pain to the Watch Commander’s face. He shuffled a few stacks of documents and asked a Sergeant at the front desk if there was a copy of the Brown Act training procedures anywhere in the office. There was none.

After a bit of a search, he offered a substitute, a one-inch thick OPS Policies and Procedures Manual, complete with bright red cover that surely signified its importance.

Mr. Brown scanned through the manual and quickly located the section of the manual that addressed visitors who “either do no (sic) have identification or refuse to present identification upon request. Officers should not deny access to any person as long as they have been properly screened and their bags inspected (Refer to Chapter 6 Section XX-D).”

It was immediately apparent that nobody had actually read the manual because the manual directed the reader to Chapter 6 Section XX-D that is entitled “Dangerous Animal Escape and Response.”

This explains the look on the face of Sgt. “L” as he parked his car curbside and entered LA’s City Hall. He was apparently prepared for an encounter with a “Dangerous Animal Escape.”

While the line between “members of the public” and “dangerous animal escape” may be extremely thin in the eyes of City Hall’s security detail, California’s Brown Act still prevails and the public has the right to attend public meetings without fear of being treed, tranquilized, or chased by Animal Control.

Mr. Brown took the time to point out the typos in the OPS Manual, including the fact that OPS officers are told to give a Blue sticker to people who show their ID and Red stickers to the other members of the public, then offering contradictory instructions.

First “Officers who then observe a person wearing a red visitor badge should be cognizant of the reasons why it was issued.”

Then “However, officers should not treat the wearer with any unwarranted suspicion.”

The OPS Manual concludes by instructing “Officer must be mindful that City Hall is a public building, and therefore balance the duty to provide for the safety of the occupants with the duty to protect the rights of those wishing to attend public meetings.

Mr. Brown thanked the Watch Commander for his time and sent a request to the City Attorney for a copy of the Brown Act training materials that are used to instruct the Office of Public Safety officers. The request has so far been ignored.

As for the City Council meeting that Mr. Brown wanted to attend, he returned to City Hall but the doors to Council Chambers were locked and LA’s part-time City Council was gone for the day.

Mr. Brown has been taken to task by those who contend that asking for ID at the front counter of City Hall is such a small injustice, one that doesn’t warrant such a stubborn demand for adherence to the Brown Act.

Mr. Brown explains “If the City of LA doesn’t know enough about the Brown Act to allow the public to simply enter the building legally, then it is certain they are not aware of the other provisions of the Brown Act such as proper notification, informative agendas, making materials available to the public, and allowing appropriate public comment.”

It has been 59 years since the Ralph M. Brown Act was passed by the California State Legislature and it guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

When the Brown Act was originally introduced, the Sacramento Bee wrote “A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.”

Those words are as true now as they have ever been.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky talks back

Gadfly Arnold Sachs says he likes to "annoy the board"
by speaking on every agenda item. Photo by Daily News

A public comment of my own

January 24, 2012

For the past several weeks, a lot has been said and written about my proposal to modify the amount of time each member of the public is allotted for comment during our weekly Board of Supervisors meetings.

Unfortunately, much of that discussion has lacked balance, context and, at times, accuracy, thus serving mostly to misinform people about what I’d hoped to achieve upon becoming the board’s chairman in December. As a result, the prevailing narrative has become this: we on the Board of Supervisors believe that when it comes to our meetings, the public should be neither seen nor heard.

The most recent example of this was a lengthy story in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times. Appearing on the front page, it flatly and wrongly asserted that I think “members of the public talk too much” and mischaracterized fundamental elements of the proposal. Inexplicably, I was never asked for my comment, even though the piece was aimed squarely at me. Had I been asked to do so, readers would have come away with a fuller understanding of the issue.

The truth is I wish we had more public engagement. Our huge hearing room is often empty, despite the breadth and enormity of matters the board confronts every week. In this regard, we are not alone. Visit City Hall and you’ll find much the same. Recent coverage would have you believe that we want to yank the microphone on a public that’s clamoring to be heard. This is not the case.

Most weeks, the same tiny cadre of individuals speak on a multitude of agenda items—sometimes dozens of them in a single meeting. Under the current practice, they’re allowed to talk for two minutes on each item and then can speak for an additional three minutes at the end of the meeting on non-agenda matters. One of these so-called gadflies admitted to a Daily News reporter recently that he had signed up to talk on every agenda item simply to “annoy the board.”

Of course, this is his right—as it is the right of another of our regular speakers to participate in this weekly spectacle by repeatedly delivering the same racially-tinged diatribe against undocumented immigrants and reciting the names and addresses of those she alleges, without evidence, of being “gangbangers.”

But under California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, it’s also the right of government bodies to impose reasonable limits on public comment as a way to ensure a healthy balance among all stakeholders in the meeting process. All our local legislative bodies have rules to this effect, including the Los Angeles City Council. In this spirit, and at the suggestion of our County Counsel, I proposed that our rules be modified to give speakers a three-minute block to discuss their agenda items—rather than two minutes for each one—and two minutes at the end of the meeting for general comment.

While this might be a tight squeeze for the small number of gadflies bent on testifying about virtually every matter before us each week, we considered it a fair policy for the vast majority of people who, in good faith, take time out of their days to travel downtown and speak on the one or two issues that directly affect their lives.

Now, we’ve put the proposed changes on hold so that our county attorneys have time to correct misperceptions and explain the board’s motivation to concerned stakeholders as we move forward.
For those of you who’ve followed my time in public life, you know that I’ve been a consistently strong advocate of government transparency—a record that includes, among other things, my successful push to make board meetings available to a wider audience by having them webcast, televised and posted online with transcripts. As some of you may also remember, I authored Los Angeles’ first freedom of information act while serving on the City Council.

So I encourage you to join me at a Tuesday Board of Supervisors meeting and see for yourself what all the controversy is about. You be the judge. Take it from me, you can’t trust everything you read.

Posted 1/24/12

Brown Act Crusader Rosendahl Could Set the Standard with His Own Transportation Committee

CityWatch, July 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 55

RETHINKING LA - Councilman Bill Rosendahl is to be commended for his recent attempt to force the City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposed Downtown Stadium and Event Center to conduct its business openly, transparently, and in compliance with California’s Brown Act.

That being said, his journey down the moral high road will be smoother if he applies the same open-door standard to the business that takes place within his Transportation Committee.
Rosendahl’s Brown Act campaign was set in motion when a representative of the Office of the City Attorney opined that “ad hoc committees of this City Council are not bound by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act -- the state law that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.”
Almost 60 years ago, an editorial in the Sacramento commented on the proposed Brown Act, saying:

A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.

Since then, the Brown Act has been revised, enhanced, clarified, amplified, debated, ignored, embraced, manipulated and periodically rediscovered.

Rosendahl’s recent rediscovery of the Brown Act resulted in his opinion that “while some may argue it is legal for the City Council to form ad hoc committees that have the right to waive or ignore public notice and information requirements, doing so would break faith with a public that rightly expects and deserves transparency in its government.”

Well said! Only Ralph M. Brown could have said it better, and he did, in the introduction to the Brown Act:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Rosendahl’s role as crusader for the Brown Act set him up for a symbolic win but a practical loss as his motion for transparency failed in City Council Chambers amidst protests and shock from Councilwoman Jan Perry who prefaced her comments by saying “Mr. Rosendahl, I consider you a good friend.” Then the Brown Act hit the fan and Rosendahl’s motion was sent to committee where those who voted in opposition to Brown Act transparency will control its progress.

Rosendahl has an opportunity here, one where he moves beyond simple Council Chamber debate and actually sets a standard for City Hall, starting in his Transportation Committee.

The City of Los Angeles engages in the business of transportation in a process that is within the oversight of the City Council’s Transportation Committee. The City of LA competes for federal, state, and local funds through competitive programs that include Metro’s Call for Projects and the Caltrans administered Safe Routes to School.

For years, LA's transportation strategies, funding applications, and project implementation have been controlled by the Interdepartmental Task Force Committee (“the Committee”) made up of representatives from the Mayor's office, the Council offices, the Bureaus of Street Lighting and Street Services, the Chief Legislative Officer's office, the Chief Administrative Officer's office, Transportation, Water & Power, and the City's Redevelopment Agency.

"The Committee" typically engages in the business of the people with three motivations, desperation, deadlines, and diplomacy.

Typical recommendations from “the Committee” come with the caveat that “there wasn’t much time, we did the best we could,” resulting in proposals made with a commitment to expediency over effectiveness. This cycle of desperation is the result of an ongoing inability to plan ahead for looming deadlines.

“The Committee” then dilutes any hope of a regional commitment to a strategic transportation plan by requiring that every council district get a piece of the pie, whether or not it makes sense.

All of this takes place in secret, away from the public, in spite of the fact that the City Council and the Transportation Committee have both directed “the Committee” to conduct its business openly.

Several years ago, the City Council directed the Transportation Committee, lead department on “the Committee,” to keep the City Council informed of its planning, priorities, and performance. That display of bravado failed to yield meaningful results, a position that the DOT defended by arguing “We had no time!”

Three LADOT General Managers in a row have tendered the same defense as they exclude the public from the process of proposing, prioritizing, and presenting transportation projects for funding, all as the Transportation Committee directs them to engage the neighborhood councils in the process.

One might argue that the participation of the public in the process might slow it down, a fair point to make that fails to acknowledge the simple fact that projects with community support perform better in the competitive funding process.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the current actions of “the Committee” fall far short of acceptable and are starved for the infusion of accountability that would come from opening the process to the public.

Years after the LADOT revealed that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan in place to drive the funding proposal process, the LADOT still meanders without guidance.

Years after the City Council demanded to be involved in the process, “the Committee” continues to offer tepid proposals that lack commitment, vision, innovation, community support or any hope of successfully competing for transportation funding.

For too long, the City of LA has relied on the “fair share” approach to transportation funding, arguing that it deserves the money simply because of its size. This has resulted in an internal process controlled by city staff that recycles old failed proposals and debating process in order to fund projects that lack vision, support, and efficacy.

It’s time for the people of LA to raise the standard for transportation planning, to participate in the process of planning, presenting proposals for funding, prioritizing projects and evaluating performance.

Rosendahl’s role as champion of the Brown Act demands that he seize this opportunity and open business of the Transportation Committee to the public by bringing “the Committee” from behind closed doors, opening its business up to the community, and embracing the public as partners in the business of the people.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)