Lancaster Says Next Deals Will Be Public : Meetings: City officials reverse the policy on real estate decisions. But they deny their actions violated the Brown Act.

Lancaster officials, faced with allegations that the City Council has been violating the state’s open meetings law, promised Wednesday that the council will make future real estate decisions in public and reveal the prices paid.

The decision came after The Times reported Saturday that the council voted behind closed doors last month to authorize purchase of downtown-area properties and did not reveal what it planned to pay.

In announcing the policy change, city officials continued to defend the actions as legal.

However, The Times on Wednesday filed a legal protest with the city, alleging that the votes violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meetings law. By doing so, the newspaper preserved its legal right to later ask a judge to overturn the decisions unless the council remedies them.

Lancaster City Atty. David McEwen said he and City Manager Jim Gilley decided earlier this week to opt for public votes and the announcement of purchase prices. “In light of some of the controversy that’s been raised . . . we saw no harm in having the council take a public vote,” McEwen said.

Meanwhile, council members who discussed the dispute at their meeting Monday night, without taking any action, said they expect the city will continue to purchase land without appraisals, although state law appears to require them.

Both issues arose when the council decided in private last November to buy 22.5 acres of parkland for $1.1 million without an appraisal, a public vote or disclosure of the purchase price. The issues resurfaced last month with the council’s closed-door decisions on 12 downtown-area parcels.

In addition to applying to future property purchases, McEwen said the city’s policy switch means the council in coming weeks will be asked to vote again--this time publicly--on purchasing the downtown parcels, a mix of lots and buildings. The city has not yet entered escrow to purchase the properties, officials said.

The demand that the city reconsider the downtown property purchases in public session is part of what the newspaper sought from the city, said Glen Smith, senior staff counsel for The Times. However, Smith said he could not say whether the city’s policy change would resolve the conflict.

Bob Rawitch, executive editor of The Times’ Valley and Ventura County editions, said the newspaper filed the protest because it “firmly believes in the historic intent of the Brown Act to require that city council actions involving governmental funds be taken in a public setting.”

State law requires city councils to hold all deliberations and make decisions at public meetings, with specified exceptions. One exception permits private meetings to instruct a negotiator on the price and terms of pending purchases.

McEwen, Lancaster’s attorney, maintained Wednesday that the city’s prior actions were legal because council members were not actually voting in private to buy property but instead delegating to city officials the authorization to do so if negotiations were successful.

However, city officials said they had not previously planned to refer the purchase agreements back to the council for further action. And Smith, The Times’ attorney, said the newspaper believes any council decision that initiates or consummates purchases must be conducted in public.

Smith also challenged the city’s practice of not identifying properties discussed in closed session until after the session, saying the law requires disclosure beforehand. Smith also said the city should release the minutes of the disputed closed sessions, a demand McEwen refused.

Despite Lancaster’s policy change, the newspaper still could sue the city to determine whether the disputed council votes were legal and ask a court to reverse them.

State law requires that, in order to reverse an illegal decision, a plaintiff must have lodged a formal protest with the official body within 30 days of its action. In the Lancaster case, the 30 days was up on Wednesday.

By filing a protest by the deadline, the newspaper kept alive the possibility that a judge who found the votes illegal also could invalidate them.