There’s little gray area with Brown Act

Combining IKEA, Home Ranch and the Costa Mesa City Council, for some

reason, seems inevitably to lead to political squabbling and charges

of rule-breaking.

It happened in the fall of 2001, when residents claimed that

meetings about the controversial Home Ranch development between a

city committee and representatives of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons violated

the state’s open-meetings law. And it happened again this month when

the council was discussing how to spend $200,000 from that

development agreement.

Only this time, the one making the charge about a violation of the

law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, was one of the council’s own: Linda

Dixon.

That this latest instance involves the passing of a note from

Councilman Eric Bever to Mayor Allan Mansoor and Councilman Gary

Monahan has obscured, in many ways, the seriousness of the issue.

Yes, it is easy to make jokes about kids passing notes in a

classroom. Yes, there has seemed to be ongoing -- but not unfailing

-- division between the three councilmen charged with the violation

and Dixon and Councilwoman Katrina Foley. But no, the incident is not

insignificant. No potential Brown Act violation is. As we have said

in the past, it is imperative that public agencies, including but not

limited to city councils and school boards, adhere to the state’s

open-meetings law.

As a reminder, the act -- named for its sponsor, Assemblyman Ralph

M. Brown -- became law in 1953 after a newspaper series detailed the

frequency of secret, closed-door meetings at all levels of government

in California. Over the years, court decisions augmented the law, the

Legislature has made its own changes, and major revisions were made

in 1994.

The rationale behind the law is simple: “ ... boards and councils

and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the

conduct of the people’s business,” the law reads. “It is the intent

of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their

deliberations be conducted openly.

“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.”

As we have said before, even minor transgressions of the act

jeopardize the public’s business and control of its servants, who

work for us on matters both large and small. It is not a law with

blurry edges, but one that must be held firm to maintain the public’s

trust in its government.

That trust is sacrosanct. And it is why Dixon’s charge must be

investigated. And it is why the Daily Pilot will continue to ensure

all meeting doors are open.