Private Briefings

The city manager in San Juan Capistrano regularly meets one-on-one with council members. I suspect he's briefing them on things going in town, and through that, decisions are being made.

For example, there was talk of a new City Hall project. The last time it surfaced publicly, the council was approving a space-allocation study to see how big it would need to be. The study must be done, but it's not been back for public discussion.

I suspect council saw the numbers in the private briefing and is keeping it under ground to avoid political fallout.

Issues like this come up again and again. A new interchange is being considered in town, and it might wipe out the oldest elementary school in town. That was never publicly discussed, although the city went as far as to ask the school district to draw up plans for a new school in alternate locations. I'm sure the council was briefed on it -- but privately -- even while other interchange impacts were discussed publicly. (I reported that story after a public records request turned up the architectual drawings).

Our city does not have regular council study sessions, only regular meetings twice monthly. I assume the manager also briefs council members on issues coming on up agendas and suspect feedback from the private briefings helps shape what's brought forth publicly.

Do other city managers do regular private briefings with their elected officials?

 

Johnathon, make yourself unpopular and file a public records request for all notes, memoranda, and written information that was provided to the council members by the city manager.  Also request the emails and written records maintained by the manage and the City Council Members.

 

JackO

Thanks everyone --

No agendas, no minutes. The City Manager already told me he's stopping putting things in writing because of my frequent (and frequently annoying to them) public records requests.

I've seen no surveys but suspect these one-on-one serial briefings are
quite common. Whether they violate the Brown Act depends on what is
said in them. They could easily be a mechanism for routine achievement
of backstage consensus. A few years ago a councilmember in Ontario
seemed to publicly admit as much, as I recall. Paul Neifert can refresh my
memory. In any event, here's what the AG says on page 12 of his
guidebook to the Brown Act (download at http://caag.state.ca.us/
publications/brownAct2003.pdf):

"Problems arise when systematic communications begin to occur which
involve members of the board acquiring substantive information for an
upcoming meeting or engaging in debate, discussion, lobbying or any
other aspect of the deliberative process either among themselves
or with staff. For example, executive officers may wish to brief their
members on policy decisions and background events concerning
proposed agenda items. This office believes that a court could determine
that such communications violate the Act, because such discussions are
part of the deliberative process. If these communications are permitted
to occur in private, a large part of the process by which members reach
their decisions may have occurred outside the public eye. Under these
circumstances, the public would be able only to witness a shorthand
version of the deliberative process, and its ability to monitor and
contribute to the decision-making process would be curtailed. Therefore,
we recommend that when the executive director is faced with this
situation, he or she prepare a memorandum outlining the issues for all of
the members of the board as well as the public. In this way, the serial
meeting violation may be avoided and everyone will have the benefit of
reacting to the same information."

One thing is certain, and that is this time-wasteful practice (five briefings
instead of one presentation) enables and invites, if it does not always
constitute, a manipulation and deception of both the body and the public,
because the executive(s) doing the briefings can tell five different stories
about a proposal responsive to the distinctive known leanings of each of
the members. The public never hears the rationale, and the members can
never be sure they're hearing what their colleagues have.

But operating this way cleverly plays into the members' insecurity about
being the least informed member of the panel when public discussion
comes up, of asking stupid questions, etc. Only members secure in their
own competence and independence are hardy enough to say, in public, "I
may or may not understand this, but I'm sure there are people in the
community who are asking . . .etc."

Personally, I think a central component of the duty of a government
body's members' is precisely to ask the stupid
questions on behalf of those who elected them, and to do so publicly. If
they're not prepared to do that, what are they warming the seat for? Any
first five people off the street can sit through secret briefings and vote the
way management wants—no (public) questions asked.


Edited by Terry Francke - 25/July/2006 at 4:57am

Very perceptive point you make:
"(P)eople become focused on product/outcomes rather than process. This
separates groups into winners and losers without realizing that when the
process of decision making is so deeply flawed, no outcome is a good one
and everyone is a loser except the people in decision-making positions."

Self-serving secrecy, manipulation, misdirection, disinformation and
outright lies may contribute to a result you like today, but your acceptance
of these means as legitimate will guarantee their use against you tomorrow.

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal finds that routine city manager
briefings of individual council members does not per se violate the Brown
Act, since it remains to be proven that this process results in a "collective
concurrence" among the members as to action to be taken or not taken.
See Wolfe v. City of Fremont,
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A112386.PDF

Hello Everyone,

 I am a new member and need some help from a Watchdog in my region which is 3 and involves the school board in Rancho Cucamonga.  Public Records violations.  Is there someone whom I might be able to contact for some direction as how to handle the situation as for me it is impeding my ability to get my work done?

Thanks, 

Another area that seems overlooked here is school districts hiding student records from parents.  We need student records for the same reason we need public records, because school districts would not abuse and often traumatize kids if they knew the paperwork could be trusted to come out.  Is there any interest in Cal Aware in this question?

Depending on the situation...if it clear that they have violated the public records act you can file a complaint with the district attorney's office. The violation goes to the Brown Act and the DA monitors that aspect. Be sure though that you know for certain that the records requested are really for public consumption. You can find out which ones are by reading that portionof the Brown Act. It is clearly defined. As a side comment, Terry Francke has an excellent book that explains the Brown Act and many other things and in it is a complete explanation about public records.

The reason consequences never happen is because very people demand that something different happens. If we held our elected officials accountable and didn't elect them again, we could get back some power. I am afraid our own lethargy is the greater fault. Few want to step to the plate and many believe that someone else will do it for them.