According to our workbook, provided by the State Attorney General of the Brown Act, on page 12:

"In 78 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 327, 331-332 (1995), this office concluded that the 72-hour notice requirement mandates local agencies to post their notices in locations which are accessible 24 hours a day for the 72 hours prior to the meeting.  Accordingly, notices cannot be placed in buildings which are locked for some portion of the 72 hours immediately prior to the meeting."

This would seem, to me, to also mandate that the notice MUST be placed behind glass if it is being routinely stolen; otherwise, it is NOT in any location that is accessible 24 hours a day, as required, during the posting period.

Our City routinely holds many special council meetings that are not on the second, third or fourth Wednesdays of the month.  We always get 72 hour notice for all Council Meetings, whether they are deemed special or regular EXCEPT when they are so called "special stand alone closed session" council meetings.  We sincerely hope that now that we have a new mayor some sunshine ordinances can be passed, and that our City Council will do the most it can, rather than the least, as suggested by Council Member Teresa Barth.

Also, I would contact your local "media outlets" to make sure that they have put in requests in writing to be notified (in writing) twenty four hours in advance of any so-called "special meetings."  Also, each legislative agency, by law, is to have an established time for regular meetings.  If you sign up, you are entitled to be mailed the agendas ahead of time, and to be notified ahead of time about special meetings, too.

Thanks for caring, swimmer.  If more people were aware and active, then there would not be so much secrecy and corruption in political office.

 

The other concern is that no one sees the agendas.  The superintendent says that he puts them up, but someone steals them.  He can put the behind glass, but chooses not to. 

 

They have been behaving a little better (as far as regular board meetings) since a grand jury report slammed them (over 50 ed code violations). 

The Brown Act does allow for these special meetings, which typically are held at a time other than than that scheduled for regular meetings.  That is the only criteria for special meetings.  We have many so-called "special meetings."  Unfortunately, only those that are "special meeting closed sessions" get only twenty four hour notice.  All other special meetings held in Encinitas get the standard 72 hour notice that is called for in the Brown Act for regular meetings.

In other words, Encinitas City Council uses the "construct" of calling every closed session Council Meeting a "special stand alone meeting," to avoid the 72 hour notice that the Brown Act calls for with respect to closed sessions held before regular Council Meetings.

Our five Council Members just selected a new mayor.  For the first time in over a year, to our knowledge, there was a special closed session yesterday morning, while our regular Council Meeting was held the day before, this past Wednesday.  Activists in our city have been asking that the City would allow 72 hour notice for closed sessions when the contracted City Attorney has sufficient notice to do so.  There is no reason to call every closed session a special meeting closed session, but even if this practice continues, we could have a sunshine law that allows three days notice when possible.  

Local newspapers have written editorials supporting citizens' contentions that closed sessions held immediately before regular council meetings should be considered part of the regular council meetings, as described by the Brown Act.  Unfortunately, Council's response has been to move the closed session to a time earlier in the day, typically on the same day, as the regular Council Meeting.  Of course, less people are able to attend when a closed session is held at one or two in the afternoon, and yesterday, at 10:00 A.M.  One Council Member said this was because it is easier to meet with counsel at that time of day.  It seems our City is more concerned about the convenience of public officials and attorneys than the right of the public to attend the open parts of these special closed sessions. 

 

I'm also curious if the Brown Act stipulates who writes meeting minutes.  In this case, the superintendent does, and they (minutes) are all very biased.